Talk:Surface (mathematics)

Change to the article[edit]

Presently, this article is a redirect to Surface, which is an article on the study of surfaces from the point of topology. Surface (topology) also redirects to surface, and I have proposed to move Surface to Surface (topology). This move request is under discussion at Talk:Surface. The reason of this move is the lack of a general broad-concept article about the general concept of surface, and the fact that the natural name for such an article is Surface. For not waiting on the discussion result, I'll begin to write here the general article on surface. This makes sense, as, in all cases, a surface is a geometric object.

As this article will be about the primary topic of surface, it should be moved to surface, when the move request will be accepted. D.Lazard (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 March 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move Draft:Surface to Surface and the disambiguation page to Surface (disambiguation), per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surface (mathematics) → Surface
Surface → Surface (disambiguation)

– Surface (mathematics) is not restricted to mathematics, as it covers also the use in science. Thus, this is clearly a primary topic. Surface is a dab page and must therefore be moved accordingly. D.Lazard (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Several move discussions have been done previously, and are mentioned above in this talk page. Due to previous moves these discussions are now in Talk: Surface (topology). D.Lazard (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose first, Support second - this mathematics article being at primary fails the WP:ASTONISH test - imagine landing on such a technical article if you're not a native speaker. The primary topic should be freed up to create a WP:BROADCONCEPT article - see Draft:Surface. --Netoholic @ 20:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: the question is by “surface” what the readers will likely be looking for. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the most typical one would be surface in math (not Windows Surface); in fact, one can argue that latter has the name inspired by a surface in the math-sense; 2-dimensional object. —- Taku (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose first, Support second - Per Netoholic's suggestion of a broad concept article, which should be created._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be astonished to find a complex math page at Surface. Math uses of the word should be mentioned but so should normal english uses of the word like the part of something we can see and touch. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both: move into Draft:Surface into Surface as a broad-concept article. The layman's idea of surface is its physical manifestation as experienced in reality, not the abstractions elaborated by mathematicians. fgnievinski (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support both. This article, which is the general mathematical concept, is consistent with the lay concept of a surface, so that it does not need to be referred to as (mathematics). Other uses are secondary, and disambiguation will do fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As a participant in past move discussions, I was surprised to see this one. A key question is whether Surface (mathematics) is sufficiently broad and accessible (i.e. not dense with math) to deserve the title Surface. I'd like to see the non-math parts moved up in the article, so that the reader encounters them before the litany of mathematical categories. But, ignoring modest changes like that, the proposal seems like the right idea in the long term. Mgnbar (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and instead improve and move Draft:Surface to Surface as a broad-concept article. The primary concept for the average reader will be the kind of surface that one touches - the surface of a road, of an ocean, of a planet. bd2412 T 04:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: As a sort of "looking other stuff" exercise, I noticed that shape gives arguably a math-sense def. So it is possible that the everyday meaning of "surface" is more or less math-sense: i.e., 2-dimensional geometric object. It also shows the proposed new surface article needs not to begin like: "over an algebraically closed field, ...". -- Taku (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Netholic that it fails the WP:ASTONISH test. In any case, having read through the article I am not convinced that the topic as covered by the article is primary for 'Surface'. Doing the best I can to account for personal bias etc, I just do not think that this topic clears the field of other topics. Shadow007 (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have added some context and sourcing to Draft:Surface, making it better suited as a primary topic article for the concept. bd2412 T 16:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing proposal. After reading again Draft:Surface and Surface (mathematics), I am convinced that my move request was erroneous, and the the correct move is

Draft:Surface → Surface

Surface → Surface (disambiguation)

As there is a clear consensus for this, I request an administrator for proceeding this move, and speedy closing this discussion. D.Lazard (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Differentiable surface section[edit]

The material recently added to the Differentiable surface section needs to be cleaned up. It is unsourced. It hugely mismatches the Differential geometry of surfaces article, which it supposedly summarizes. The "G number" terminology seems to come from a specific discipline or application, but I can't tell which one. Mgnbar (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this edit. D.Lazard (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect "Two-dimensional space"[edit]

Please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Disambiguation_of_Two-dimensional_space. fgnievinski (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]