User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Equipartition theorem improvement[edit]

Geometry guy. Many months ago, I added a link within the Thermodynamic temperature article to the Equipartition theorem article. I found the Equipartition theorem article at the time to be very wanting and tried to make an easy-to-understand first paragraph that was accessible by a wide audience. I immediately caught flack by others. After they were done making their changes, what remained was entirely techno-talk lifted seemingly straight out of an advanced textbook (worthless for Wikipedia's purposes). I just now looked at the article and was amazed at the quality of the article. While you will no doubt claim that you had help from others, I can tell who is largely responsible. The article clearly has benefited from a single good shepherd who has worked hard to produce an outstanding article. Absolutely outstanding work! Greg L (my talk) 22:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many many thanks for taking the trouble to come here and express your compliments. I have to say, though, that in many ways I was actually a helper, rather than the helped. It was WillowW who transformed the article of early March into something close to FA standard: she deserves nearly all of the credit. I acted as assistant shepherd during the FAC, partly because, being a mathematician, I wanted to make the maths easier and more accessible, rather than more impressive and forbidding! I imagine you will want to thank Willow personally for her incredible work, but I will certainly pass on to her how much the improvement to this article has been appreciated. From my own point of view, I know I put a lot of work into the article, and am very touched that you have noticed that and commented on it. Thank you, Geometry guy 23:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks for correcting me. Still, thanks for all your mathematics contributions; they are seamlessly integrated with the article rather than a separate section and I think that's a great way to do it. I left a message already on WillowW’s talk page. Greg L (my talk) 04:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Willow did most of the maths too, and I agree, it is a great way to do it! I was more like Mr. "Thou shalt not use a single term or concept before it has been explained". ;) I've never put in so much work on one article, but it was great fun! Geometry guy 12:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back atcha: Your philosophy of "Thou shalt not use a single math term or concept before it has been explained" is most valuable and has been sorely needed on Wikipedia. I've long suspected that too many contributors just copy and paste from their text books (“look at the kinda of formulas that I can understand!”). What these type of contributors produced was of no use to anyone. The reader who comes to Wikipedia is often drawn by the succinct, pithy introductory opening paragraphs and definitions. These are the type of reader who appreciates having their hand held as one advances deeper into technical articles. Simply having directly copy & pasted formulas barfed onto Wikipedia's pages is of no use to this typical reader, nor is it of any use whatsoever to an expert in the field because they simply go to their favorite reference book(s) for fear that Wikipedia's formulas could be in error. I've also had lengthy text exchanges — and even hour-long phone calls — with math-type contributors and I've found that some can deal with the math at a symbolic level without having a complete, intuitive understanding of the subject matter and what it all means. Explaining math variables and whatnot in a complete and understandable way is tough, double-tough. Thanks. I appreciate your placing the credit where credit is due; WillowW does awesome work. Greg L (my talk) 17:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On a separate note, I have had nothing to do with the formulas section of the Thermodynamic temperature article; it is beyond my expertise. I have noted that some terms are introduced out of the blue without having been explained. Do you have time to look at it? Greg L (my talk) 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got round to looking at this. Thermodynamics is beyond my expertise as well (it really was Willow who did the math at "Equipartition") but I think I have been able to clarify the argument, and at least make the terms appear a bit more naturally. I also gave the article a bit of a copyedit, but there are still quite a few things wrong with it. The lead needs to be longer and summarize the contents, for example. And what's going on with all those long footnotes? Such material either belongs in the text, or in a different article, in my view. Cheers Geometry guy 13:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

small comment[edit]

Hi, GG. I am assuming that you, as a Mathematics Professor, understand the point of the problem on the Complete metric spaces page, and that there is a flaw with the argument presented there at present, in that the completeness of the reals is assumed, and therefore the claim that this argument can be used to complete any metric space is fallacious, in that it can't be used to complete the rationals to the reals, as it already assumes completeness of the reals. I really, really don't care that my text was reverted, but, as far as I am concerned, truth is truth in Mathematics, and can't be compromised. I can understand if someone takes the view that the gory details of first completing the reals before completing a general metric space is more detail than needs to be on wp pages, but then some explanation should be given of the points that are being glossed over- a mathematically incorrect and misleading chain of reasoning should not be left to stand unchallenged. You may wish to distance yourself from the discussion, and I wouldn't blame you for adopting that stance, but as far as I am concerned, this is an issue of mathematical fact, not taste or opinion. Messagetolove 23:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to distance myself from this (although, as I say on my user page, my credentials are not relevant, and I am not a horse ;). I agree that it is nice to view the completion of a metric space as a generalization of the completion of the rationals to yield the reals, and so one feels a little bit cheated if the latter is assumed. However, the article is still desperately short, and there are other issues that could be elaborated and clarified as well as this one. That is the approach I would take if I had time to edit this. Good luck! Geometry guy 00:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I did not mean that you had extra credentials because you are a Mathematics Professor, just that I knew for sure you would understand the logical issues. I'm not sure I understand the horse allusion, but it's late- oh, I get it, GG ( but you don't seem to have been cranky about this before, what's made you get the bit between your teeth about the issue now?). Anyway, I have had another attempt at editing the page. I think it is clearer. If this gets reverted, then I guess I will feel that I am wasting my time in this game, which will be a great pity for me, at least. Messagetolove 02:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nay, I never get cranky. Even Cantoring doesn't get me down (or wind me up) :) Good luck with the completeness. I will take a look. Geometry guy 10:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice line! I concede. Messagetolove 20:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It's now beginning to nag at me that I fell at the first hurdle when challenged, and I'm bridling, as well as saddled with a sense of remorse, which will probably handicap me until I whip myself back into shape (I'll go to great lengths to make sure I'm not down fur long, even though the Cantoring line wins hands down). More seriously, I think the "Complete metric space" difference was resolved with a reasonable outcome, after a few iterations, and I've been doing a few minor edits (the last really substantial piece I did was the Mackey formula section in the Character theory article). I don't know how you find the time to do all you do on wp, since my own poor efforts are time consuming. Messagetolove 21:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A worthy response, especially "fur long"! I'm glad complete metric space found a resolution, and good luck with your other edits! Geometry guy 23:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A grateful shepherdess and her stalwart, knightly assistants. ;)

Not far in thought[edit]

Hi G-guy,

I've been travelling to see my sister graduate, which has been a lot of fun. I've never actually held an academic hood before today — not very practical, are they? Do you ever put it over your head? I'm planning on taking measurements anyway, so that I can sew regalia for other friends who get their PhD's, maybe even Awadewit, if she'll let me.

Although I'm far from home, and we've been working in distant corners of Wikipedia these past weeks, you're never far from my thoughts. I can't express my thanks enough for your kind and chivalrous words just above; you and Cronholm are indeed cut from a finer cloth. It was tons of fun, wasn't it? I hope we have the pleasure again very soon. Affectionately, Willow 03:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only when it snows ;) Lovely to hear from you. It is nice when someone stops by just to thank you for your work, isn't it? I was very glad and honoured to provide the redirect :) Meanwhile another knightly young user has come to my attention, Ling.Nut, who single-handedly rescued Georg Cantor from GA/R. With Dauben in and, and a passion for fixing fact tags, Ling now seems determined to take it all the way to FA. Still, the article might benefit from the keen and encouraging eye of a wise shepherdess. Let me know what you think. Geometry guy 11:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KMP[edit]

Hi; just a quick note to say I appreciate the way you handled the GA delisting of Klee's measure problem. I think it does indeed fail GA, as you noted in your comments. It would have been easy for you to use this as a reason to point out the shortcomings of GA, since the GA reviewer evidently wasn't equipped to detect the article's shortcomings in coverage. I thought you were very restrained and quite accurate. Good luck with your quest to improve the way GA works. Mike Christie (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by, for the good wishes, and also for being a voice of reason in these discussions: much appreciated. As you point out, this case does bring into focus the question of whether GA should be aiming to assess quality of content, or whether it should concentrate on more easily checkable issues of presentation and policy, at least for technical articles. However, the system would also work better if more technical editors contributed to the GA and GA/R process so that issues of coverage would be spotted more easily. The problem at the moment is that many such editors are disillusioned with the GA process. I've no idea what can be done about this, but I'll keep thinking on it. Geometry guy 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kind words & cool award[edit]

Hi, thanks for the kind words & cool award! After some initial discussion, I hope everyone will soon get everything worked out over at Georg Cantor & move it forward to FA!

If you don't mind eavesdropping on Salix alba's talk page, I left a wordy suggestion there about a gatekeeper... an ambassador to GA, really... for each of the "hard sciences" wikiprojects. I still think the idea is the only compromise answer to the GA/sciences conflicts over inline cites... tho in my post on Salix alba's page I said there might need to be more than one gatekeeper per wikiproject, I now think one is enough... can you take a look over there & tell me what you think..? --Ling.Nut 17:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your idea has a lot of potential and am tempted to link to it from some of the discussions there have been on this issue. However, it might be wiser to develop the idea a little bit, and maybe see if one or two other hard science WikiProjects like it. Nice one, anyway! Geometry guy 17:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.. :-) .. before I go.. bear in mind that the idea applies to scientific jargon and specialized concepts. Speaking very frankly, I must side with the much–hated–GA–reviewers on the Georg Cantor article. It does not fall under the guidelines for Science cites.. it's history/bio... direct quotes that are left uncited, forex, are a clear no–no in my book... later! Ling.Nut 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We may have to agree to disgree on this, and that is one of the great things about your proposal. Meanwhile, I would be interested to know your comments on Area of a disk. Geometry guy 20:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

s but there is no room to disagree. :-( The science standards apply to science.. only... meanwhile, I'll look at the article. Ling.Nut 20:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is room... SCG for the the set theory section and normal citation for Cantor's biographical details.--Cronholm144 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant too... we're talking around each other, and agreeing without realizing it... the direct quotes are in the bio section & must be cited... all the pure math shtuff is under SCG... I left some comments at Area of a disk.

I wonder if it would be worth creating a template for use at GA/R (and elsewhere) about technical articles. The kind of thing I have in mind is a template which says "This is a technical article", "Please bear in mind WP:SCG" and "It would be helpful if an independent expert could comment on whether the technical material is standard, or represents original research". It is just a vague idea right now, but what do you think? Geometry guy 20:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an existing template that is very similar to the one you just proposed... I just don't remember where I saw it. I think it said "this article needs to be reviewed and verified by an expert in the field X". Anyway you could probably adjust the template (whatever it's called) to your devices. I think any message that encourages genuine communication between experts and GA/R would help reduce the mounting tensions between the two groups. Hopefully if an expert is involved in the GA/R there won't be an outcry every time a technical article is delisted.--Cronholm144 21:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't it but I am terrible at searching the template space {{scipeerreview}}--I'll search again once I get more time.--Cronholm144 21:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I could find that template, but it is intended as a sign that the info on the page is disputed/questionable & needs to be reviewed by a domain expert. It has nothing to do with reviews...
If you were gonna do anything at all with templates, the cleanest approach would just be to add an option to existing GA templates rather than create a new one... but...
... but I still think the idea of each sciences wikiproject having its own Shepherd for GAC/FAC, who has been given the authority to make a good-faith sign-off that the info (or specified portions thereof) is not WP:OR & is common knowledge in the domain is the best approach... Ling.Nut 21:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template and the shepherd idea are not mutually exclusive; In fact they could possibly be complimentary. Perhaps the template could act as a "Shepherd alert system" once(assuming) we find willing shepherds. --Cronholm144 21:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GAC has a separate section for hard sci noms; that section contains a notice about sci guidelines. The shepherd could additionally visit every page in that section, start a "GA Nomination" section on its talk, and place this extra reminder there:
GA reviewer: Citations within discussions of scientific and mathematical concepts follow the Scientific citation guidelines.

Recognition of decency.[edit]

I would like to thank you for the way you've handled yourself regarding the GA/R issues. You're the only one from the mathematics project that, in my opinion, has handled the situation with maturity and respect. I appreciate it, and respect you for it. The situation has gotten out of control and has caused me to lose my cool. I'm taking a break from the project because of it, but I wanted to apologize to you for anything I said that may have been offensive to you. As for my new kids in the playground analogy... in that case, you'd be the father of the new kids! :)

With that said, any issues with GA and GA/R that are in need of change won't be fixed when the discussions are being conducted the way they are now. It has been handled all wrong. Complete animosity toward the volunteers at GA/R is unnecessary and unproductive. My recommendation is that it all be dropped and, after the dust has settled, you make the proposals and keep those who come off as bitter away from them altogether. Otherwise, it's just going to degenerate into another (pardon my language) shit storm all over again.

Congratulations on your first delist and accompanying review, by the way. If you enjoyed it, I hope you stay. GA/R could certainly use the help, especially with some regulars now taking a break. And I know I would enjoy working with you upon my return.

Regards, LaraLoveT/C 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by and for the kind words. I haven't been at all offended by any of your remarks, so no apology is necessary. Wikipedia is a wonderful playground and I feel a bit like a kid here sometimes. In fact, I think I'd rather be a kid than a parent of such a rabble :) :)
I hope you enjoy your GA/R wikibreak, and return refreshed and enthused. Your suggestion to wait until the dust settles is a good one, although I'll keep following the discussions for the time being. There have been several thoughtful contributors to these discussions, so maybe we can get together when the dust has settled and see if there is a positive and helpful proposal that could be made. Geometry guy 11:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, G-man... I would like to say that I'm remaining light-hearted about it, but I was a bit put off by your comment "but I don't belong to the 'vote first, ask questions later' school of reviewing". Considering it was a reply to me, it can easily be assumed you were referring to me with regards to "vote first, ask questions later". I believe I give quite thorough reviews and am fair with them, so I'm not quite sure what your issue with me is here. LaraLoveT/C 17:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lara. Of course I was not at all referring to your style of reviewing, and apologize if even for a moment that thought crossed your mind. I have no issue with you at all, and think, in fact, that you are an extremely good reviewer, both thorough and fair, as you say. I admire in particular the fact that you often not only read thoroughly, but edit the articles you review. Instead I was referring to my own style in a rather light-hearted way, and humour can often come across wrongly over the net.
In the back of my mind, there is also my view that it can be more productive to comment first at a discussion, then see what happens, and then "vote". However, this is just my opinion (maybe it is just because I don't like crossing things out!), and does not appear to be a common approach at GA/R. I guess I should be a bit more careful how I express my views! Thanks for pointing this out, and apologies again.
As you can imagine, also in the back of my mind were general concerns about the emphasis on counting things at GA/R. In that regard, I must also thank you for appreciating my comments on the talk page. I look forward to working with you on this! Geometry guy 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good to hear! Thank you for the clarification! I think we can make a lot of positive changes to GA/R, now that the dust has settled, as previously mentioned. Hopefully, we can get all these proposals put into place and agreed upon and really start revamping this. If we get it running smoothly, it may draw in additional interest. The more editors positively contributing, the faster discussions can be processed. LaraLoveT/C 18:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the spirit which led me to engage actively and constructively with the GA/R process! You have returned from your GA/R wiki-break refreshed and enthused indeed! I've made a first shot at some archiving guidelines (all, of course, on the draft proposal page) to stimulate more discussion. Geometry guy 20:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Area of a disk[edit]

I think KSmrq reverted every single change I made to the article, so, in true Cantorian fashion, I won't edit it any more. :-) Sorry I couldn't help! Ling.Nut 14:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but I kept the good ideas, and adjusted the intro accordingly. So thanks. --KSmrqT 15:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comments, in particular, see helpful to me. I've commented further on the article talk page. Geometry guy 16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a couple things...[edit]

I'm kinda surprised you don't have wikipedia email enabled. Anyhow, after the "area of a disk" affair, I'm starting to wonder whether there is a fundamental disconnect between math people and everyone else in the world, at least when it comes to English.

My wife and I "probably" have job offers lined up, for as soon as September. I'm still trying to decide whether that means I should *postpone* the prelims, or *work harder* on them to be certain I get it over with. Our prospective employers said (subject to a few other circumstances — cross your fingers) that they do not care whether we postpone them or not (my wife is a PhD student in Linguistics as well). So I don't know where that leaves me. I may be working more on wikipedia soon, or I may not be working at all. :-)

I have a little workpage for Cantor going here.. It has more cites on it than the mainspace article. If I'm not around (which I may be...) & if you need a cite, try looking there first... Later! Ling.Nut 13:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we need input from a math-friendly linguist! So I hope you will not be deterred from taking an interest in math articles by a little resistance from time to time. I think KSmrq dislikes FAC as much as (if not more than) footnotes, so the prospect of area of a disk heading that way is not very high. Actually, a lot of us in math question the high level of footnoting that FAC seems to demand. As for Cantor, many thanks for creating that page, although I hope you will stick around. If not, and someone takes Cantor to FAC, that page will be very useful for dealing with all the "fact" tags that will inevitably be slapped on the article ;) Good luck with the prelims/new jobs. Geometry guy 14:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words! :-)
You know, it really would be best for Wikipedia if the Math folks would learn to play nice with everyone else. I'm sure you see it as a failing of GAC/FAC. I'm also sure that you may chalk my perspective up to the fact that I'm a former GA/R person. But really... in my opinion, math folks are different. I mean, they think differently. That's not bad; it's good. It's what makes you good at math ;-) But you shouldn't be hostile or isolationist/separatist and especially shouldn't be condescending (please forgive me; present company excepted) to everyone else in the world. Wikipedia is not a Math textbook. :-) ;-) It is a medium that is different than the one you (seem to be) used to working with; both sides to need to accommodate the other! And everyone is already accommodating you via the scientific guidelines... Please forgive me if I sound.. like I'm turning it into a two-sided situation.. but.. don't you think it already is? I hope I'm not forcing the situation into my perception. I hope I'm merely describing the way things are.. If it's the former, then I apologize. :-) I gotta run now.. nice talking... Ling.Nut 15:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OH PS the fact that I mentioned the scientific guidelines as an example of others accommodating the Sci people makes it sound as if the cites are the main difference. The cites are not what I was talking about above. [If you wanna meet non-sci people who are anti-cite, chat with Geogre/Giano and their club. :-) ]The prob with math articles is that they are too compact. In the field of mathematics, elegance is good. That's what I mean by "you think differently." The real skill that is lacking in math writing is in knowing which steps are not obvious to the reader. Start at the beginning, move to the middle & to the end, and don't skip any steps. Add linking verbiage for cohesion/coherence. The paragraph I re-wrote in Cantor (the one beginning "Liouville had established ...") is a bit similar to what I have in mind. Hold peoples' hands. Make a trail of breadcrumbs from point A to point B to point C... sorry if I babble too much! Now I really have to go... Ling.Nut 16:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are all good points, but I'm not sure that making them here will change much. I think math editors are often simply unaware that they are being condescending. I try desperately hard not to be, but I may be failing too. There is definitely a rift between quality review processes (such as GA/R and FAC) and hard science (especially maths and physics) and I have been working very hard on several fronts to try to bridge some of the differences, but editors on both "sides" all too readily accuse others of failing to appreciate their work.
I agree about the compactness of math articles. That is why, I repeat, we need math-friendly non-math editors. I freely admit that my own attitude to a specialized article is to "get the math right first", then try to make it more accessible. The latter process needs non-mathematical contributors; it also needs some of the mathematical editors to step back a bit, following WP:OWN, but sometimes this can be hard. Geometry guy 20:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I had another idea about this interface, but will reply above.

Changing importance to priority[edit]

Please let me know when the time is right to change VeblenBot to use the new categories. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready when you are, and there seems to be consensus (in the sense of some support from e.g. Jitse and Salix Alba, and no objections). Thanks also for all your work on query.php. Some of our tables (e.g. basics) are a bit embarrassing while this bug is still around! Geometry guy 18:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, all that needs to be done is:
  1. Create the new "priority" categories (can be done any time, the existence doesn't affect whether articles are in them or not).
  2. Change the maths rating template thus doubling the length of the job queue ;)
  3. Wait on the job queue for the new categories to be populated (could be a long wait) Only an hour or two...
  4. Change VeblenBot to query the new categories
  5. Change VeblenBot to call it "priority"
  6. Change the various math WP 1.0 templates to use the new terminology I think this is done now, at least in a provisional manner.
  7. Add a priority= parameter to the maths rating template synonymous with importance=
  8. Maybe also add a quality= parameter synonymous with class=
  9. Replace the old categories by redirects and move any nonempty talk pages
  10. Consider deleting the old categories. Note that this may require Oleg to modify the WP 1.0 bot: see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mathematics articles by quality statistics Oleg's code is already smart enough to handle this!
  11. Decide what to do about B+ category
Am I missing anything? — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds about right. Note that the old categories do have some history, so you may prefer to move them rather than creating the new ones from scratch — as you say this can be done any time. I've changed the text in the maths rating template, so it only remains to change the category names so that the new ones are populated. I've also updated some of the WP 1.0 templates, but I may have missed something. Also, as I mentioned before, I think the word "importance" should still be used in some places as a reminder of the name of the tag (as in "Importance of article: Top-Priority"). Cheers Geometry guy 14:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "name of the tag" - do you mean the importance= parameter in the maths rating template? We should add a synonym "priority" for that. This can be done with the syntax {{#if:{{{priority|}}}|{{{priority}}}|{{{importance}}}}}, see User:CBM/Sandbox. I added it to the list. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so, and it is a good idea to add a synonym. The importance parameter is used several times in the template, so I guess it might be easier (and more readable) to put your code in a subpage and transclude it (assuming that works). Geometry guy 16:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed VeblenBot this morning. I did switch to Category:Unassessed-Priority mathematics articles for consistency. It turns out that category pages cannot be moved, so I created the new categories. I also edited a few of the WP 1.0 templates, but I think not all needed changes have been made. The job queue was very small this morning (you can get a rough estimate from Special:Statistics, and it shrinks at a rate of several thousand per minute), so everything seems to have propagated through quickly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess it is more convenient to use "Unassessed-Priority", but not necessarily more consistent: I view "Priority" as an analogue of "Class", and Unassessed-Priority and Unassessed-Class do not exist as permissible ratings; instead they indicate the absense of a rating. This may be why the "Unassessed" category is not called "Unassessed-Class" (except by VeblenBot ;) ). For me the importance/priority distinction is a bit like the quality/class distinction.
Anyway, I'm not to bothered about this, because the whole terminology is somewhat mixed up for historical reasons. I think, though, that references to "importance" need to be kept in a few places and have added/reinserted them: there are, after all, 2600+ articles, with "importance =" in the template. In the long run, the terminology may change of course.
By the way, I do have your suggested improvements to VeblenBot on my todo list. I'm planning some other significant code changes at the same time. If you have other ideas, the next few weeks is the right time to throw them out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I sometimes feel a bit guilty when I make work for you! I will think about it, anyway. Do you have any plans to go further with the categories approach? Geometry guy 20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-class articles[edit]

You changed the rating of Ackermann function from A to B+ class. That was one of several articles that was already rated A class when the new A-class review process was written. I think it would be better if you nominated those articles for discussion at WP:WPM/ACR rather than unilaterally changing from A class. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand right, this article has not been through A-Class review (if it has, please correct me: I looked for an A-Class review before adjusting the rating). It doesn't currently meet A-Class standards in my opinion (e.g. an article that discusses the inverse of a non-invertible function without further explanation is not A-Class). For such articles, I take the point of view that the correct procedure is to rate them as B+ class until they are nominated and pass A-Class review. I don't regard this as a unilateral change of a collective decision, because there has not yet been a collective decision. Geometry guy 00:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. At the moment A-Class review is phrased as an approval process, like FAC or GAC. If it is also a forum for review, then this needs to be stated explicitly. I might then propose several articles for consideration.
It was intended as a review process as well as an approval process. I'll clarify that, sorry for the confusion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! In which case, one of the changes I made definitely needs review: Fermat's last theorem. I was quite hard on this one because it is such an important article. I left some comments on the talk page. I think a review could be worthwhile. Geometry guy 00:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave them a cursory scan to make sure they weren't too bad, but those grandfathered articles probably do merit closer scrutiny. I would ask you to only nominate one for review at a time. The articles that have been nominated so far have received substantial editing during the process, but if too many were nominated I'm afraid the editors involved would be stretched too thin. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I noticed you and Ksmrq have added a list of criteria to the A-class review page. When the process was being shaped, several editors were strongly opposed to having firm criteria for A class articles. That's why the criteria are written very vaguely on that page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the list at Geometry guy's request. The list allows considerable latitude, but if raters feel the criteria are controversial (are they?), then of course the list should be removed. --KSmrqT 23:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point of view is that this checklist is a useful informal way to address A-Class review, without worrying too much about the precise and firm criteria taken from MoS and other places. These criteria are just as vague as the ones listed. I am happy for the list to be removed, or for its role to be qualified. Geometry guy 00:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're fine, I didn't plan to revert them. I wasn't certain if you were aware of the aversion to firm requirements that some editors expressed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested that the list (taken from WT:WPM) be qualified by some caption, but wasn't able to think up a good one. If you can, then please do. Geometry guy 00:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turing reduction[edit]

You changed the rating from B+ to B. What were the specific faults you found? — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maths ratings have an element of subjectivity; I have been attempting to reduce this, but it cannot be eliminated entirely. I should have left a comment when changing the rating, but I thought I was just signing what seemed obviously to be its current rating according to our criteria. If it is truly B+, then please uprate it. I think, though, that the article could be more accessible than it is: brief glosses of some of the most important links would help. Geometry guy 00:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Person[edit]

Jouster tried to create it, but it turns out Jouster has to actually enter some CONTENT! Who knew? Jouster suggests you try it now. Jouster  (whisper) 01:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Now you just need to add Category:Wikipedians who talk to themselves on their own talk page and my wiki-insanity defense will be unchallenged on talk pages throughout the land ;) Geometry guy 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even Jouster has his limits. Though he was very tempted to do something similar to what he did here in response to your April Fools WikiStalking accusation. Jouster  (whisper) 05:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC talk note[edit]

Geometry guy, I thought I'd point you at this discussion, in case you haven't been following it; at the tail is a discussion of (amongst other things) whether a WikiProject could take on some of the content verification work that is so difficult in technical areas. I wouldn't say it has a great deal of support, but if you think this is something that the mathematics WProj might be interested in supporting, that might be a good place to chime in. Just FYI, in case you're interested. Mike Christie (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't following it, and am interested, so thanks for letting me know. I have some thoughts concerning the problems that the scientific guidelines present for reviewers which Ling highlighted above. These might be relevant. I have many other thoughts too, but as you say in one of your posts, progress is usually more rapid when the temperature is low.
On a related front, you may have noticed Lara commenting here to the effect that once the dust has settled at WT:GA and GA/R, it might be possible to put forward some reasonable proposals. I could just try to do that, but it might be more effective for a few of us (e.g., you, me, Steve, Homestarmy) with varying, but more measured, views, to brainstorm some ideas first. Let me know what you think. In the meanwhile, I have been educating myself a bit more in GA/R by looking at a few non-technical articles up for review. Geometry guy 18:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in seeing any proposed solution, since I have a somewhat crossover background (humanities FAs but maths training); please let me know when you do put something together. I don't promise I'll get involved but I'd certainly like to stay abreast of your plans.
One specific suggestion, which may be already your intention: if you do find three or four like-minded people to participate in some initial discussions, I suggest you take it to a subpage of one of your user pages, or a subpage of a relevant WikiProject, just to have a space to work through some ideas without immediately having others jump in with criticisms at too early a stage.
On a related note, do you think a useful preliminary step would be try to tease out the different problems that need to be addressed, in order to be clear about what any individual solution is proposing to fix? E.g. an initial list might look something like this:
  • Reviewers at GAC/FAC/GAR/FAR providing incivil comments
  • Nominees being incivil to reviewers who are providing good faith reviews
  • FA writers giving up and going away
  • Technical content not being reviewed effectively in some domains
  • Citation style conflicts and biases
  • Inability of the existing FAC process to scale much further
Just some thoughts. Mike Christie (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good ones. Yes, I was thinking of a Wikipedia talk subpage somewhere. I'm mostly thinking of GA/R, because that is how I got into this, but many of the issues apply to FAR and FAC, and a few (different ones) apply to GAC. Your crossover background is perfect (no wonder you have been a voice of reason!). I hope the other people I mentioned are people you feel you can work with: other suggestions welcome. Of course, all discussions are open to anyone, but, as you say, if a bit of space can be created, it is helpful.
Your suggestions are interesting, but I think "incivility" is the wrong focus: a lot of these problems are about misunderstanding. I find the distinction between nominators/custodians and reviewers most unhelpful: we are all editors/users and we mostly share a common goal of improving articles. I think most editors are being civil (at least initially), but are failing to understand where others are coming from.
On the other hand, the issue about FA/GA writers giving up is a serious one: the combination of ability, determination, and a thick skin is quite rare! I also agree that the technical content issue needs a lot of discussion, as do citation style issues and how to deal with WP:V and WP:OR for such content. As for the last issue, does FAC need to scale yet? A more pressing issue is that GA should surely be outstripping FA by an order of magnitude, but is still not lightweight enough to achieve this. There is not enough advice on how to handle GA promotion and delisting, and consequently GA/R is overloaded. Geometry guy 21:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK on de-emphasizing "civility"; I haven't had much of a problem with that myself, though there's evidently a heck of a lot of perceived incivility. Yes, all those people sound great. As for FA and GA, I think improving either one will be beneficial. I am tempted to argue we should think about FA first, though, because FAs are the goal -- GAs are not. GAs are some sort of stage on the road to FA, at least currently. So theoretically, at least, a correct FA process provides some conditions that might inform a discussion of GA; plus in that world-view, scaling FAC is a fundamental goal.
But I also think it's prudent to work on what's in your field of vision, and what you're motivated to work on. So if you feel GA is the place to start, no problem. Just let me know if you decide to pull something together. Mike Christie (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive the intrusion, but I'm puzzled by an assertion of interest: "FAs are the goal -- GAs are not". As I understand the idea of a featured article, the point is to have a "show-off" article for the welcome page. I thought the original goal of the Good Article project was to recognize and improve a broad spectrum of articles, many of which are unlikely to be suitable "show-off" articles. I believe the encyclopedia needs vastly more service articles than show articles, but we can ask that these be well written without artificially forcing them to become show pieces.
Incidentally, tension between writers and editors/reviewers is a tradition larger than Wikipedia.
  • How often we recall, with regret, that Napoleon once shot at a magazine editor and missed him and killed a publisher. But we remember with charity, that his intentions were good. — Mark Twain
  • The writer who can't do his job looks to his editor to do it for him, though he won't dream of sharing his royalties with that editor. — Alfred A. Knopf
This apart from the Two Cultures issue. :-) --KSmrqT 16:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to downplay the value of GA -- I've sent a dozen or so articles I've worked on through GAC, and I value it highly. I was just talking about the utopian end-product of all our work: an encyclopedia where every article is as good as it can be. I think of FA as the current draft of the process that will eventually "approve" every article, so that's why I thought it might be better to look at it first. However, I can also see that other views of WP might limit FAs to "show articles"; so yes, from that point of view GA may be more important. I don't feel strongly about this in either direction; I'm much more interested in finding a way to get started on improving things. Mike Christie (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expect there may be as many different views about what GA and FA are for as there are editors! I think the processes have to be flexible enough to accommodate these varying viewpoints. For me, the fact that FA articles can get featured on the front page is a side-issue. Instead I view them as comprehensive articles which treat a subject in depth, and do it brilliantly. Not every subject needs such a treatment, and not all FAs are suitable for the front page. I find it odd when editors object at an FAC because the article is too specialized to be suitable for the front page (this happened to 1-2+3-4+... for example). But I agree with KSmrq that GA should not just be a stepping stone, but also a respectable quality standard for the many articles which do not lend themselves to a comprehensive in-depth treatment. Geometry guy 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on split-/para-/hyperbolic-/coquaternion[edit]

Hi Geometry guy - I've read over your edits to split-quaternion and your actions to merge the information into one article. I believe that your acts were bold, necessary, and reasonable, and resulted in a much condensed form of the same content. I'm very glad to see that you've been able to do these edits, at a time where I find myself unable to spend much time in Wikipedia. Therefore you truly deserve:

The Editor's Barnstar
For bold, necessary, and reasonable merging of the isomorphic algebras of split-/para-/hyperbolic-/coquaternion into one article, split-quaternion, resulting in a condensed and easier accessible article without loss of content. Jens Koeplinger 00:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you, it is much appreciated! There is still much to be done to improve the merged article, though. I also noticed that you fixed the double redirects, thanks. I think I deserve to lose the award for forgetting that (I usually remember that kind of thing). Ah well... Geometry guy 01:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thermodynamic temperature: Note 1[edit]

Geometry guy. Thanks very much for your edits to Thermodynamic temperature. I've stared at the text for so damn long, I can no longer recognize when an sentence is hard to parse. It has sorely needed someone willing to read the entire article sentence-by-sentence for comprehension and improve those sentences that had to be read twice. All good stuff.

From reading one of your edit summaries, it appeared you were proposing moving the expansive note #1 into the body text. This is something I've long considered but repeatedly discarded, and here's why: both the Temperature article and the Absolute zero article have long been in a state of flux with novices wrestling with various physics concepts. Consequently, the articles have been subject to what I call “drive-by shootings” that are argued over and reverted back and forth. By keeping note #1 as a scholarly footnote, I believe it provides the necessary information for the type of reader interested in such details, while at the same time keeping the subject somewhat under the radar. There's been a lot of vitriolic arguments by Wikipedia contributors over the years about the nature of absolute zero and what is occurring at that temperature. I'd rather the information in note #1 keep a low profile. Also, the article would become rather lengthy. Too, I've so far managed to keep the body text at a reasonable level of comprehension; note #1 is pretty darn technical and is best kept as a footnote (albeit an expansive one). Greg L (my talk) 04:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm glad to be of help, and sorry that it took a while to get around to it. I also commented above, in case you didn't see it before. I hope my edits didn't introduce any errors.
I see that there are pragmatic reasons for structuring the ZPE stuff as it is, but there is also a Zero point energy article, which probably has a sufficiently obscure name to avoid the level of attention that Temperature and Absolute zero get. There has been a bit of crank stuff about extracting energy from the vacuum, but it appears to have died out now. How about adding some of the technical material to that? Geometry guy 09:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In advance of the bouncing balls animation becoming the featured picture on May 14th, I had an opportunity to edit the caption. I chose to mention Temperature and Pressure but avoided any mention of you know what to avoid making it a lighting rod. I think your sense regarding the Zero point energy article is correct; it probably is scientific and obscure enough that “ninth-graders in a hurry” tread rarely on that article. I've had a series of thoroughly distasteful experiences with a self-appointed article squatter on the Temperature article and am now gun shy. That's the reason in fact, that I ran off from Temperature to Thermodynamic temperature. Did you take note of the author cited in Note #1 (Dan Cole)? He's the IBM researcher who wrote three ground breaking papers on zero point energy. I've exchanged over 30 e-mails with Dr. Cole over more than a year as I worked on the '“thermo” article. I thanked him publicly too for his help. I was able to be left alone there for a long period of time while I e-mailed various experts to have them review it. Those are the truly wonderful experiences that makes this hobby fascinating and rewarding for me. Getting into reverting wars with contributors who fancy themselves as an über expert but are off-base and intransigent simply ruins my day. People like you and WillowW are the exception, not the rule. Getting back to your suggestion regarding the ZPE article: if you are suggesting that I add to it, I guess my fear of making the thermo article a lightning rod exceeds my sense of reward. However, if you were soliciting some sort of blessing from me for you to do some wholesale copy/paste action, be my guest. Is that what you had in mind? Greg L (my talk) 05:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the additional information, and interesting discussion. I hope I will find a moment to take another look at thermo and ZPE, but I'm not so much bouncing balls as juggling them right now, so I'm not making any promises... Geometry guy 13:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Area of a disk[edit]

If I may interject a word, the Talk:Area of a disk#send it thru FAC then.. event reads differently to me. Ling Nut changed

  • If the area of the circle is not equal to that of the triangle, then it must be either greater or less. We eliminate each of these by contradiction, leaving equality as the only possibility. We use regular polygons in an essential way.

to

  • If the area of the circle is not equal to that of the triangle, then it must be either greater or less. However, each of these possible outcomes can be eliminated by a chain of logic that leads to contradiction, using regular polygons in an essential way.

How is this better for a reader? I claim it is worse; here's why. The information is (almost) the same, only the wording is different. "We eliminate … by" becomes "can be eliminated by a chain of logic that leads to". Sorry, but an emphatic "Yuck!". A simple declarative sentence — empirically shown to be easier on readers — becomes a passive-voice morass. And lost is the explicit point that not greater and not less implies equal. But it gets worse. The second sentence, which makes an independent point, is appended. Again, this flies in the face of readability studies. Even were a compound sentence to be used, rather than Ling Nut's abomination I would prefer:

  • Archimedes' proof eliminates greater and less by contradiction, using regular polygons in an essential way.

I'm a highly educated native speaker of English. I can correctly use and understand (and even enjoy!) fancy polysyllabic words and sophisticated sentence constructions. Yet when I write, I deliberately look for simple ways to say things. I work very hard at connecting with lay readers, as well as not offending expert readers. It ain't easy to do both simultaneously! Ling Nut, as demonstrated by results, is insensitive to the communication issues I value, and is unqualified to claim that I write for myself, not the reader. But I'm too polite to say so. Or I was.

This seriously offends me, so here's more detail. Look at the pictures; do you think they contribute to the article, especially for a lay reader? I do, and I spent a fair amount of time creating them. Notice the references to actual people — Archimedes, SATŌ Moshun, Leonardo da Vinci, Willebrord Snell, Christiaan Huygens; these personalize the results, something known to draw in readers. Notice the organization into logical bite-sized sections and sub-sections, to help keep readers oriented; that did not happen by accident. And look carefully at the references, where I went to a great deal of extra trouble to find links to original sources so that all readers, not just those with access to fine university libraries, can study the masters. And this is "for the author(s), not the reader(s)"?!!

But here's why I tempered my reply to Ling Nut. Feedback can be helpful, even from people who write poorly and lack understanding. I'll supply the writing and fine-tune the technical details if I must. We did need a link to pi; now we have one. The "of interest" sentence was awkward (as it had always struck me); now it is less so. I have long made a habit (before Wikipedia!) of soliciting extra eyes, if not extra hands, from naive readers. Indeed, I chose to ask for an A-class review to see what others might say. Using that feedback well is an art; implementing it verbatim is almost always a mistake. So, I felt it best not to burn bridges with Ling Nut, even though I was reminded of the Adlai Stevenson quotation:

An editor is someone who separates the wheat from the chaff and then prints the chaff.

Enough bitching! I'm going back to working on integral. --KSmrqT 18:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you do have a rather different view, and am not sure how to reply. You did indeed do a lot of great work on the article, and I believe Ling.Nut recognised this in his initial post on the talk page. I think it is a mistake to focus on his specific edits, rather than their general direction, and also the information his talk-page comments provide about how the article is received by a non-expert.
I agree entirely that his edits were not a clear improvement to the article. If I had thought that, I would have reverted your reverts. However, the edits pointed towards possible shortcomings, which you brushed aside. Ling.Nut probably over-reacted to being ignored in his response, and now you are "seriously offended". Come on, relax, guys, this is only Wikipedia!
Let's look at your specific example. Both of the second two sentences are uncompromising. What does "by contradiction" mean? Certainly there is contradiction between the area being greater and the area being less, but that isn't what you mean. And are "regular polygons" essential? Could "we" not use nearly regular ones (or indeed any other shapes whose area we can compute) to obtain a different (albeit extremely ugly) proof?
Ling.Nut's version made it worse, I agree, because some mathematical expertise is needed to improve these sentences: combining them, at least as suggested, is certainly a bad idea. I fully support your "keep the language simple" approach: indeed one could probably define a "highly educated speaker of English" as one who knows how to use complicated sentence constructions, but doesn't!
I notice, though, that your improvement of Ling's attempt already addresses another issue: you have found a subject ("Archimedes' proof") for the second sentence. I'm not against using the first person plural in articles, but believe it should be avoided where possible, and for this, my mantra is "find a good subject": the wrong choice of subject leads to a convoluted passive-voice morass, as you rightly point out; the right choice can add much clarity.
I have suggested I might work on this article a bit myself. If I do, please bear in mind that I am not providing feedback, I am contributing to the article. I am not commenting on the quality of your work, but building on it with my own views on how to improve articles. There aren't custodians and commentators of articles in Wikipedia; we are all editors. Geometry guy 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I raised my objection on your talk page because of an impression that you accepted Ling Nut's assertion. It was one thing to see it on the article talk page; it is another to see it repeated. (A reminder: here is the article before I rewrote it, answering Michael Hardy's call.)
Does it not occur to you that my rewording above considers the reader, namely you? I know use of "we" makes you uncomfortable, so I deliberately chose a wording without it just for your benefit.
Any article can be improved. I fervently wish it happened more. But the truth is that many changes I see are like Ling Nut's, where I can improve the article by reverting. Yes, I have read and accepted the admonition at the bottom of the page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." But we've also got a "history" tab at the top of the page, supporting an "undo" facility. It's there to be used.
And you are dead wrong about custodians and commentators; for good or ill, both abound. Some are officially sanctioned, like vandal patrol and peer review. But real writers, with command of both topic and language, are scarce. Witness the progress on integral, or lack thereof. As Nathaniel Hawthorne said,
Easy reading is hard writing.
And, as with "area…", with "integral" I'm taking a topic to which I have only modest attachment and attempting to generate good words, good pictures, and good references. For the common good.
Even if you think "area…" is only, say, 80% of what it could be, I think at this point "integral" would be a better investment of your energies. It's far more important and needs far more work. As well, I think young Cronholm144 could benefit from a positive first experience with WP:MATHCOTM. --KSmrqT 21:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem a bit touchy on this subject. Ling.Nut's remarks struck a chord with me not as a specific criticism, but as a general comment, because I know I tend to become attached to an article I contribute a lot to, and want it to evolve into the article which I think it should be: for example, I have been trying to resist interfering too much with the development of Derivative and Affine connection since my contributions. After a good-faith edit, I believe "improve or correct" is usually preferable to "revert or undo". Otherwise, one ends up finding oneself wasting time wrapped up in discussions with other editors.
Every editor is free to decide where to invest their energies. Some prefer to improve the best articles, others like to create stubs; some like to focus on the most important articles, others like to help the neglected ones. This is not www.KSmrqKnowsBest.com: some time ago, you offered Arcfrk some "guidance" and suggested, "I get the impression that you think a lot of your own opinion." I was struck by the irony already then, although I was relatively new myself. I guess such self-confidence tends to prosper here, and I have plenty of my own, I'm sure. I mention this in the same friendly spirit as you did with Arcfrk. I know you are well-intentioned, but your final sentence above is not only patronizing, but wrong: Integral is not Cronholm's first experience with WP:MATHCOTM. Geometry guy 22:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't respect your contributions I wouldn't be having this discussion. Besides, on my worst days I am still asymptotically less cantankerous than Michael Hardy (whom I also respect). :-)
As you know, Cronholm144 is just entering USC as a freshman, hence "young". It was only recently that I encouraged him to take charge of the collaboration, and this is the first major article I recall coming up since then (almost exactly a month ago today). The topic has top importance, the article really does need help, and few editors are participating. The bits I am working on privately will hardly make a dent in the task. So for all these reasons I feel a moral tug to help things along. Please accept my nudge in that spirit.
I do hope you noticed that I modestly suggested only an 80% rating as your possible view of "area…", despite its new A-class standing. You've been threatening to edit it for awhile now, so I take it something continues to itch. Scratch if you must. It's just that I noticed a phenomenon some time ago, first with "manifold" and later with other articles: editors can spend a lot of time fiddling with something best left alone — at least temporarily — while ignoring the fundamental bits that need serious fixing. If the "area…" article were completely removed, the world might be a little poorer, but it would move on. Not so the "integral" article. I'm as guilty of this behavior as anyone, so I'm certainly not claiming any moral superiority.
Case in point: ratings. This is a huge thankless task that can never be done right. I've contributed little; you've been making it happen. Good for you. I've tried to be supportive in words, if not in deeds. I have reservations, but I've tried to express them sotto voce, so as not to stall the effort. Perhaps some day I'll essay large numbers of ratings myself; not soon. My passion is trying to show folks better ways to present our material. When your comments suggest that you agree with Ling Nut's claim that "area…" is written for the author rather than the reader, I feel it is not only demonstrably false, but undermines my efforts. Since I think you will listen, I complain. --KSmrqT 00:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Michael seems to have something of a reputation, as well as being a fine editor (as indeed are you, in my humble opinion!). Thank you for the friendly reply. I have been very supportive myself of Cronholm's endeavours: indeed he has often been an inspiration to me, rather than vice versa, so I am not concerned that he might become disillusioned. I agree Integral needs work and accept your nudge very much in that spirit. (The previous collaboration, Mathematical physics, attracted less interest, unfortunately, so Cronholm didn't let it run for a full month, but wisely syncronized the changeover with the start of June.)
As for "area...", yes, I have been largely leaving it alone because there are more pressing issues. I may come back to it, but it isn't a threat, just a desire (prompted partly by reviewing A-Class articles and delisting a few, though clearly not this one) to make sure our A-Class articles really nail it. I've appreciated your support and sotto voce advice on ratings. I have been listening, to yours and many other voices, so thank you for articulating your views so clearly. Geometry guy 01:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics assessment set-up[edit]

Thanks for the links showing how the Mathemetics WikiProject assessment lists are set-up, with exemplary use of comments subpages. I also found the data subpages interesting. Would you be able to look at some of the ideas I had to do something similar with the Wikipedia:Persondata meta template that some articles use, so as to get lists and categories for all biographical articles? Indeed, did the Mathematics WikiProject consider using Persondata?

The background to this is that there was something called List of people by name that attempted to manually maintain a list, whereas generating a list from data in the article is obviously a better way of doing this. The places I've discussed this are scattered around at the moment. When I get time, I hope to consolidate it into a taskforce somewhere. Have a look at this and this, and the background is here and here (need to find it on the page). Carcharoth 13:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We did consider using Persondata, but ruled it out as too expensive. The problem is that the persondata template is on the article page, so to query it you have to download the entire article and parse it. Our bot runs daily, and so we have designed the system so that it only ever needs to read categories and backlinks, both of which are cheap. In fact the advantage of a data subpage is that the bot does not need to read it at all: the template can be queried by a simple transclusion on the Mathematicians page!
You might think this could be addressed by wrapping the persondate template in an "onlyinclude" section, so that when the article gets transcluded, only the persondata template is expanded, not the entire article. However, there is a problem with that, known as the pre-expand include limit: there are limits to the amount of data which can be transcluded on a given page, and one of the limits even counts data which is thrown away. Transcluding entire 50K articles would hit this limit after about 40 articles, as well as making the page tiresomely slow to load!
I would suggest you develop a proposal to transclude the persondata template from a subpage, rather than place it directly in the article. It should be very easy to modify the template to make this work. The current persondata could be migrated to subpages (possibly with minor syntax changes) in a one-off bot request. Thereafter, the data would be instantly accessible from any other page.
Your project looks interesting, although I have only glanced at it briefly. If I have any more comments, I will let you know. Geometry guy 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting stuff. Thanks. I will have to think about all this some more. Carcharoth 15:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a proof of concept at User:Geometry guy/Persondata, Alexander Grothendieck, and Alexander Grothendieck/Persondata Talk:Alexander Grothendieck/Persondata. Geometry guy 15:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it has to be a supage of the talk page, because subpages of mainspace pages are disabled in the mediawiki software here. So Talk:Artin reciprocity/Comments is considered a subpage of Talk:Artin reciprocity (look near the top to see that the software provides links back to the parent page). But Alexander Grothendieck/Persondata is parsed considering / as a normal character, not a page name divider. This only happens in the main namespace. Another consequence of putting the persondata in the main namespace is that it would count as an "article" in Special:Statistics, which is not ideal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll move the stuff to Talk. I agree completely with the policy to ban hierarchical mainspace articles, but disabling subpages in the mainspace seems to be a stupid way of enforcing it to me! Geometry guy 15:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Done. Geometry guy 16:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#ifexist:{{confusion}}/yes | need-help[edit]

Ok, let me try to explain better what I am trying to accomplish. Go to Talk:Joseph Haydn. Hit edit and replace the WPBiography template with: {{User:The Psychless/WPBiography|attention=yes}} and preview it. This is basically what I want, but the background shouldn't be white, just the normal color of the template. Now here comes the confusing part. Remove the |attention=yes parameter and preview again. Now the show/hide bar and comments aren't there. The code only generates the show/hide bar and transcludes the comments if the parameters: |attention, |past-collaboration, etc. are there. Somehow it needs to do that if a /Comments subpage exists as well. The background needs to be the normal color too. Hopefully you can make sense of this template. Remember, it is found here. Direct any comments, questions, or anger at the complexity of the template to my talk page. I hope this helped explain things better! Now off to complain about the WP1.0 bot not updating our logs and statistics... --Psychless 01:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maths article ratings[edit]

A joint message to you and Cronholm144: it is an excellent and very effective job you're doing in rating maths article en masse — I think currently a substantial percentage of all ratings is by you two. However, I sense a slight unconscious bias towards topics you're more familiar with, which in particular leads sometimes to what I perceive as clearly too low importance being attached to a topic. I have been rerating some of these recently, with Artin reciprocity, classified as "low" in "algebra" when it surely is high/top in number theory, comes to mind as a good example. On the other hand, I think these kinds of incidences are practically unavoidable, in particular when doing a massive number of edits. Hence, what I would propose is the following: when rating an article the importance of which is unclear (either because it is low or it is not yet well written or is just an unfamiliar topic), leave the importance assessment open. This way the project benefits in two ways: (i) the otherwise unclassified and partially "invisible" article is brought to the attention of the project (a major benefit of the mass classification effort!), and (ii) the fact that a second opinion on importance is needed becomes visible as the article ends in the "importance unassessed" category. Inadvertly classifying something as "low imprtance" risks an article being "lost" again, in particular as the number of assessed articles grows. Again, thumbs up for the excellent work and bon courage! Stca74 17:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the kind words of encouragement and support! I definitely recognise the bias you have noticed, although I think we are getting a bit better with practice (!) and with clearer guidelines. With regard to Artin reciprocity for example, the importance rating was actually assigned by Carl a couple of months ago, and I passed over it before the recent discussion of importance and the new-improved (!) guidelines (although possibly I wasn't paying attention!). I would definitely not rate it "low" now, and I've no doubt that your assessment of "high" is a good call.
I do not offer this example as an excuse, however: as you point out, this kind of incident is practically unavoidable. Furthermore, there is a bias which I am more conscious of, in that I am more likely to add a rating to something I have heard about that something unfamiliar. This is creating a systematic bias in terms of which articles get maths ratings. I just have to hope that this will be ironed out in the longer run by other editors' contributions.
I do tend to add an importance rating even when I am not sure or the article is underdeveloped, and in this case I tend to underestimate. My reasoning is that editors watching the page are likely to update a too-low rating (and possibly become infuriated with my ignorance of statistics ;), whereas a blank rating or over-estimate could be left untouched for some time! Importance ratings, like the rest of the assessment, are not set in stone, and, even if they are accurate, they can change as related articles are created or articles are split or merged. I have mentioned these issues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Importance: some of these fledgling guidelines are based on things I have noticed in practice, as well as the discussions at WT:WPM.
However, I do take your point that sometimes "importance unassessed" might be a better option. I think I should also alter the remark on the maths rating template to make it more clear to editors that the importance and field are not definitive, and should be revised where necessary. Geometry guy 19:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. If you have a moment, could you update the comments for the ratings you have adjusted? Thanks again for stopping by!
Thanks! I have removed my signature: it isn't worth keeping old comments unless they still contain valuable information. Geometry guy 19:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

I hereby award you this cookie of deliciousness for your valuable contributions to the WPBiography Template :) --Psychless 18:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tux will be helping you eat it.
Wow, what a mouth-wateringly delicious looking wiki-cookie. And from the look on the face of Tux, I better move fast if I want some of it.
Thanks, it was a pleasure to be of assistance! Geometry guy 19:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And on a side note, the template is now fully functional! Color and all. See here. --Psychless 20:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I might do the same with the maths rating. Geometry guy 21:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:FieldsMedalFront.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:FieldsMedalFront.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Which part of "no copyright" did you not understand, OrphanBot? No wonder your ParentBots deserted you. What you mean is that "this uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status" allows bots, who have nothing better to do with their time than create extra work for other editors, to cruise through newly created images looking for people to harass. The so-called "licensing" list for uploads is useless for images released into the public domain, and the instructions for uploads state nowhere that a tag needs to be added. You just made that up.
Anyway, I've added a public domain tag just to make you happy. Next time you stop by here, why not read the clear instructions at the top of this talk page, and fix it yourself.
Yours, GeometryBot 20:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Microformat on persondata subpage[edit]

With your consent, now or later, I'd be happy to add hCard mark-up to User:Geometry guy/Persondata. Andy Mabbett 19:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a little bit already using {{Birth date}} and {{Death date}}. I'm still not yet sure whether it is best to have the hCard format on the metadata page itself, or as an export format (say with key=hCard): the subpage idea might evolve into metadata of an arbitrary nature, not just biographical information, and for display on the metadata page itself, it may not be appropriate to choose a particular microformat. However, please do add hCard mark-up when you want. I might change it back later on, but even then it will be greatly useful to have it in the edit history. This is, for the moment, just a series of experiments! Geometry guy 20:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. hCard isn't an "export" format - that's vCard. hCard is meant for on-page (in in-feed, in RSS, say) use. If the sub-page has conditional statements for, say, displaying date of birth, then that can also trigger use of hcard classes. Andy Mabbett 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We may not mean the same thing by "export" here. I have in mind "on-page", but (possibly) on a different page. Anyway, this will only be an issue when we have an article that has metadata for which two different microformats might be appropriate. Geometry guy 21:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've added some comments, also. 1928-March-28 (from {{birth date}}) fails; the month parameter must be a number. Some properties, such as nicknames, would be better divided into individual entries (nickname1, nickname2, etc.) - hCard allows multiple instances of such properties. There are other hCard properties which could also be used. Andy Mabbett 20:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. That is useful. Concerning birth date, I think it is better to fix this in {{birth date}}: the visible part allows the month to be described in any format: the same should be done for the hCard part. It seem easy to fix using {{MONTHNUMBER}}, so I will do it. Geometry guy 21:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've had that debate on the microformats wiki; the problem arises with September/ Sept/ Sep/ Septm./ Septembre/ Settembre/ Setembro/ Septiembre / insert langauge or abbreviation of choice :-( Andy Mabbett 21:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be gloomy! For now, this is en.wikipedia stuff. To cover other languages, {{MONTHNUMBER}} needs to be improved. Anyway, I made the fix, and it seems to work (from viewing the pagesource). Geometry guy 21:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now that I should have used {{MONTH}}, as this also pads out the zeros. Geometry guy 21:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bday (birth date in hCard) seems to be OK now. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 22:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VeblenBot updated[edit]

I changed VeblenBot to make files like this: User:VeblenBot/B-Class mathematics articles-Mid. Any file that you used to use, except the main table and the mathematicians file, now has 5 pages, one for each of the suffixes -Top, -High, -Mid, -Low, -Unassessed. Would you like to update the templates and pages under WP:WPM/WP10 appropriately? Note that the smaller tables no longer include the section headings, so those will have to become part of the templates. If you don't have time, I can do it tomorrow. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but it doesn't seem to be working. Instead it lists all the articles of the given importance level, often twice! I'll work out the templates, but then revert to maintain the current lists while you debug. Geometry guy 13:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm embarrassed. I fixed the problem this morning and uploaded a new set of tables. I looked at fixing Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/Algebra, but I didn't see immediately what was wrong with the template code. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the template code is fine, but something weird is happening with the pre-expand include limit. Have a look at the html of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/Field page format, which transcludes nearly nothing, but the pre-expand include size is about 1.7MB! The only explanation I can think of is that instead of counting the size of {{User:VeblenBot/{{{field}}}-Mid}}}} (which is nothing, because no such page exists), it is counting how big it could be if {{{field}}} were substituted for one of its values. Very weird. Geometry guy 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, my sanity has been restored: it was the conditional transclusion of the massive Mathematicians page which was screwing things up. This is easily fixed by doing the transclusion on the Mathematicians page itself. Geometry guy 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that to understand pre-expand include sizes, a PhD is a minimal requirement. Anyway, I have now been able to beat the limits, so that B, Start, and Stub are once again "small" articles. This involved shipping transclusions out of all conditionals (using yet another two template pages). The same tweak will work for the fields if this becomes necessary. I've attempted to elucidate the previously opaque paragraph in Wikipedia:Template limits in the light of this experience. Geometry guy 22:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the entries in the main table should now link to the subpages, rather than the sections of the main pages. I guess the span is not used for anything anymore, and can be removed. Given all this work, I also wonder if it is worth also adding field pages by quality, so that these can also be linked from the main table. Geometry guy 22:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pre-expand limits are somewhat idiosyncratic, because they are implemented in parallel with the recursive parser. The template limits documentation does seem clearer now.
It all becomes clear (at least to me) once one realizes that the arguments of a parser function are all expanded before the parser function is executed. Geometry guy 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the links in the main table. You set it up perfectly so that the code change was very minimal. I also noticed your edit to the main table. That edit would be lost when VeblenBot runs, since the bot overwrites the entire contents of the pages it uploads, but I edited the source code to reflect your change. The point of the span tags was only to provide a place for the links to point to, I believe, but they shouldn't hurt anything until they get removed.
Here are some of my thoughts for things to do with VeblenBot when I rework the code. First, I want to be able to generate more of the 2D tables. In particular, you and others want a field/priority table, and I want to be able to generate tables of quality/priority for each of the subjects. Second (more long term) I want to implement some system whereby VeblenBot caches some of the data that is currently transcluded, in effect transcluding it before uploading it to the server, which will greatly lower the pressure of the template limits. Even if I just do the comments, that should cut the pre-expand size in half or more.
If there's anything else I can do to make the bot more convenient for you, just let me know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! More 2D tables would be great. I like the idea of quality/priority per subject especially. The entries of a field/priority table now have somewhere to link to, and we could also create field pages by quality as suggested above to provide links for the remaining main table entries. Longer term, do you have any more thoughts on using categories? I think it probably needs a feasibility study before a fully fledged proof-of-concept, but I'd be happy to work with you on it if you are still interested in the idea. Geometry guy 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I don't know about you, but I find it extremely difficult to keep the structure of this project in my head for more than about half an hour. So I thought I would mention, in case you didn't notice, that I have created a page Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Structure to keep track of all the pages, templates etc. that we use. Geometry guy 13:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gauge integral[edit]

Geometry Guy - I found your contrbutions to the Riemann/Lebesgue integrals discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics really interesting. As you suggested, I read the generalised Riemann integral/gauge integral article and this external link. I don't doubt that the Dirichlet function is gauge-integrable, but I am trying to understand how this works. I wonder if you would mind answering a few questions to help me understand this.

  1. I want to show that the gauge integral of the Dirchlet function over the interval [0,1] is 0. If my understanding is correct, for a given ε I need to find a gauge function δ(x,ε) such that the Riemann sum of any δ-fine partition of [0,1] will be less than ε, no matter how many sub-intervals are in the partition. Am I right so far ?
  2. I guess the trick is to make the gauge function small at rational x but large (say 1) at irrational x, so that no matter how many rational tags ti ther are in a partition, the contribution from their sub-intervals will always be less than ε (the contribution from any irrational tags is obviously 0, so they can be ignored). Is this the right approach ?
  3. So, my first guess was to make δ(x,ε) equal to ε/q at each p/q, because there must be fewer than q tags of the form p/q in any partition of [0,1], so the contribution from their sub-intervals is less than ε. Soon realised this wouldn't work because you could get contributions of order ε from several different values of q - a δ-fine partition that included tags at 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4 (plus any number of irrational tags) could have Riemann sum as large as (5/3)ε. I think any gauge of the form ε/kq for fixed k has the same problem. My next thought is to try a gauge function of the form ε/qk. Am I heading in the right direction or am I on completelty the wrong track ?

Many thanks for any help you can provide here. Gandalf61 11:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, and the interesting external link. The reference I use for this theory is "The Riemann Approach to Integration", by Washek F. Pfeffer (Cambridge University Press). You are definitely on the right track in making the gauge function small at the rationals. I haven't checked the details, but I guess if you use ε/q3 you will be okay, because the sum of 1/q2 is finite. I can come back to you on this one later, although I expect you've got it by now. Geometry guy 12:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I see - if we use ε/2q3 then the maximum contribution for each q is ε/2q2, so maximum contribution across all q is ε.ζ(2)/2 which is less than ε. Okay, so I now know there are gauge functions which make the Riemann sum less than ε for any given ε. Do I now also have to show that there are no gauge functions which can make the Riemann sum converge to any other value apart from 0 ? That could be more difficult ... Gandalf61 13:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a general result: the GR integral is a "limit" process in a technical sense and so the limit, if it exists, is unique. To see this you need the lemma that every gauge delta has a delta-fine partition. Then to get the uniqueness of the limit, suppose you have two gauges delta1 and delta2, and consider the gauge min(delta1,delta2). A partition for this is a partition for both. Well, again I'm being sketchy, but I hope you see the idea and can fill in the details. Geometry guy 13:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get the idea. Thank you for all your help. Gandalf61 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilbert[edit]

Hi Geometry guy. Thank you for your message about commons:Image:Hilbert.jpg. I uploaded that image to Commons a long time ago, and I suppose I had copied it from the Wikipedia in English, as I was so careful to inform the interwiki to the WP:EN. Meanwhile, it has been deleted from the WP:EN. I'm sure I copied all image information provided in the WP:EN, so I'm afraid I cannot help in avoiding the image to be deleted if that information is not enough for Commons. Regards, Mschlindwein 14:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geometry_guy/Archive_3&oldid=1136185838"