Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Wallpaper groups |
→Citation spam: Reply |
||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject mathematics tabs}}
{{end tab}}
{{Talk header|sc1=WT:WPM|sc2=WT:WPMATH}}
{{FAQ}}
{{Bots|deny=Cewbot}}
{{WikiProject Mathematics}}
{{Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/archivelist}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(15d)
|archiveheader = {{WikiProject Mathematics archive list}}
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/%(year)d/%(monthnameshort)s
}}
== Sexist content edit summary ==
Is this considered [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Assmann&diff=1302560473&oldid=1298070187 sexist content]. {{u|Solomon7968}} has been removing [[Erdős number]]s from articles with that edit summary. Here is an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Solomon7968&oldid=1301138373#Erdos_Numbers old talk page discussion], which references this project, hence the reason I am asking here. Thanks.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 14:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
: It could be the case that we list Erdos numbers for a lot a women in mathematics, but not many men. The same editor is also removing Erdos numbers from male mathematicians. There's a discussion to be had whether Erdos numbers should be listed at all, unless they are discussed in secondary sources. [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 15:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
::I've seen multiple removals by the same editor on articles about men, and the "sexist content" summary on only one article, despite having many more women mathematicians than men on my watchlist, so I suspect that any disparity in how often we list it goes the other way. Anyway, I don't see how it is sexist. Trivial, arguably, but it does give some indirect indication about how well-connected to topics of interest to Erdős (like combinatorics) the subject is. If the subject had significant and noteworthy interactions with Erdős himself we should definitely list it but I don't think listing or not listing these numbers is important. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 15:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
:::I first noticed the "sexist" edit summary on an article you created, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hilda_Assiyatun&diff=1302560754&oldid=1281361889 sexist content]. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hilda_Assiyatun&diff=next&oldid=1302560754 restored it] as I trusted your judgment for including it in the first place.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 15:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
::::I suspect the "sexist" summary may have been a misinterpretation of my wording there. It said "Through her collaborations with Wormald, she has Erdős number 2." That was intended only to mean that the path from her to E runs through W, but it could have been (incorrectly) misinterpreted as a sexist statement that her own accomplishments were not hers but W's. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 16:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
::::: A counterexample to this interpretation is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryam_Mirzakhani&diff=prev&oldid=1302559609 this]. [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 16:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, I now see that they have gone on a spree removing Erdos numbers from mathematician articles, but in the male mathematicians, the removal is classified as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yefim_Dinitz&diff=prev&oldid=1302561067 trivia], but in the female articles, it is sexist. This topic is outside my purview, so I'll leave it up to more experienced editors on this topic as to whether the number removals are trivial or sexist, and whether they should be removed at all. Thanks.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 15:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
::: I have reverted all of the removals. Perhaps these are trivial, but that is a matter for community consensus. I note that in several instances the editor removed Erdos numbers on the basis that the paper for which the subject gained that number was "not his most widely cited one", which seems to have no conceivable basis in policy. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 17:31, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
: IMO the edit summary is clearly inappropriate and not a valid justification for the edit. (Maybe better justifications for some of these edits are possible, though.) --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
::Whether it's for male or female mathematicians, listing the Erdos number of someone is trivia and it seems perfectly acceptable to me to remove it. [[User:PatrickR2|PatrickR2]] ([[User talk:PatrickR2|talk]]) 21:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
::It seems reasonable to me that the Erdős number is trivial information unless there's something significant (like the decreases from posthumous papers, or the one that was described as filling a much-needed gap), though at the point where you're doing mass removals and getting challenged you should definitely try to get consensus.
::And the description as sexist is just confusing. [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 22:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
:Talking about the article on [[Susan Assmann]], which triggered this discussion, the Personal life section says she was interested in change ringing and hapsichord music. True facts, but it also seems rather trivial in an encyclopedic article about a scientist. What would be the rationale for including this? [[User:PatrickR2|PatrickR2]] ([[User talk:PatrickR2|talk]]) 21:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
::(1) Because articles that give only the basic dates of career-relevant milestones are skeletal and boring. If we have sourced publications about some other interests, that can make the article less dry. It's a helpful to convey to our readers the idea that mathematicians aren't robots. (2) Change ringing is actually extremely relevant for someone who started out working in discrete mathematics. (3) If a notable mathematics society saw fit to include this in a professional obituary, why should we second-guess that decision? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks for enlightening me. [[User:PatrickR2|PatrickR2]] ([[User talk:PatrickR2|talk]]) 22:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
::Why would [[Isaac Newton]]'s interest in alchemy be relevant to his biography? Or that [[Milton Babbit]] also worked as a mathematician? [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 21:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2017/May#Erd%C5%91s_numbers]] is the archived discussion, where there seems to have been a rough consensus that Erdős numbers only should be mentioned when the number itself is significant or linked through a significant paper. (I think this also explains where the "not most cited paper" thing came from, which I think might be over-reading the consensus, but I can at least trace the path) [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 17:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
::I'd like there to be some sort of formal discussion on this topic now, rather than relying on a discussion from 8 years ago. My personal opinion: although I agree that having mention in a biography's lead paragraphs is often not warranted, a single sentence in, say, a Background section is fun. The reader who doesn't care is burdened with one small sentence that can easily be ignored. The reader who finds this interesting is rewarded with that little nugget of information. Because the cost is so small (i.e. "{{tq|<Author> has an [[Erdős number]] of 3.}}"), I'm in favor of keeping this information in biographies. (Disclaimer, in case it is relevant: several someones I know who have pages on Wikipedia have Erdős numbers of 3 or less.) —[[User:Quantling|<span class="texhtml"><i>Q</i></span>uantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 18:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
::: I don't mind having the Erdős number listed in articles. I'm strongly opposed to its mass removal without consensus. I'm strongly opposed to removing it from any article because of supposed sexism. - [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]]<small> ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/CRGreathouse|c]])</small> 19:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
::::Forget about sexism. That was a red herring. The issue is about triviality. [[User:PatrickR2|PatrickR2]] ([[User talk:PatrickR2|talk]]) 23:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
::::: Definitely the key point, on which there is no solid consensus. [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 23:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::If it's included, I'd prefer that it be included with some other related detail, such as the nature of the research or the names of the collaborators that led to the number. The number itself, devoid of context, is not particularly interesting. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 23:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I agree that there should be context around the number. In general, I think only Erdos numbers 3 and less should be reported. As you get to larger Erdos numbers, the meaning of the number has less meaning as a person is more likely to be in a different discipline and not have much to do with Erdos. A few exceptions would be an academic descendent of someone with Erdos 1, or every paper between Erdos and the person is on the same problem. Thus, context would be leading why we list the number, and a number with no context would encourage people to write about the context or realize that it is trivial (like someone with Erdos number 17 is just weird to list). [[User:EulerianTrail|EulerianTrail]] ([[User talk:EulerianTrail|talk]]) 00:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::It might be interesting to see in the future an infobox parameter listing Erdos numbers, but for right now I think it better to decide on how we actually talk about Erdos numbers and which ones are truly notable. [[User:EulerianTrail|EulerianTrail]] ([[User talk:EulerianTrail|talk]]) 00:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm fine with including it, since the cost of even a fuller description is small ("<Author> has an Erdős number of 3, thanks to..."). It can make an article a tiny bit less dry, and it doesn't require problematic [[WP:OR|Original Research]] on our part. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 01:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
::I support the removal of the Erdos number from articles in most cases. Some supporting arguments:
::- (1) It is kind of a triviality.
::- (2) The number can change as new papers get published, based on who an author collaborates with.
::- (3) This information is available online, at the click of a button: https://www.csauthors.net/distance/. For example, this shows Susan Assmann's Erdos number is 2: https://www.csauthors.net/distance/susan-f-assmann/paul-erdos.
::- (4) I may remember things wrong, but isn't there a general Wikipedia guideline that says Wikipedia is not the place for routine information that can be gathered routinely from the internet? [[User:PatrickR2|PatrickR2]] ([[User talk:PatrickR2|talk]]) 23:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Why should information be removed from Wikipedia just because it is easily found elsewhere too? Many other places on the Internet will say that Paris is the capital of France, that zebras have stripes, that the area of a circle is <math>\pi r^2</math>, etc. {{pb}} And if a person's Erdős number changes, we can always edit the article. We include plenty of things in academic biographies that are subject to change, e.g., a person's current title and place of employment. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 01:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
::::Also some random website that claims to be only about "computer scientists [sic] bibliographies" does not seem like a great source for this information about people who are not computer scientists, the Erdős Number Project only counts up to two, and the [https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet/collaborationDistance.html MathSciNet distance calculator] doesn't let you check what the joint publications are (necessary to check whether they should really count as joint publications) unless you have a subscription. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 01:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::The zbmath version is open access: https://zbmath.org/collaboration-distance/?a=David+Eppstein&b=Paul+Erdos [[User:PatrickR2|PatrickR2]] ([[User talk:PatrickR2|talk]]) 03:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
::::[[WP:NOTDIRECTORY]] is what I was thinking about. But maybe not applicable. [[User:PatrickR2|PatrickR2]] ([[User talk:PatrickR2|talk]]) 03:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::I don't see anything there that would be applicable to this question. We're not talking about making a directory of all professional mathematicians, or a complete bibliography of all mathematical publications, or even a list of all the publications by any individual mathematician. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 03:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::Agree, not applicable. [[User:PatrickR2|PatrickR2]] ([[User talk:PatrickR2|talk]]) 03:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Has [[User:Solomon7968]] been notified that this discussion is happening? [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 19:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Solomon7968}} now he has been ping [[User:EulerianTrail|EulerianTrail]] ([[User talk:EulerianTrail|talk]]) 23:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Solomon7968&diff=prev&oldid=1303015606 quite some time ago. Has only made one edit since. [[Special:Contributions/173.79.19.248|173.79.19.248]] ([[User talk:173.79.19.248|talk]]) 01:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
== Is there a term for a number that can only be calculated by the multiplication of two other specific numbers? ==
For example, the number 15 is 5 x 3, but there are no other positive whole numbers that can be multiplied to get 15, as compared to, say, 45, which could be 15 x 3 or 5 x 9 or 3 x 3 x 5. Also, is it correct that the product of any two primes will only be calculable by the multiplication of those primes (such as 64,507 only being reducible to 251 x 257)? [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 17:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
: [[semiprime]] [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 17:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
:: Interesting. Thanks. It seems that all the number articles on numbers with this characteristic note this as well. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 02:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
{{ping|BD2412}} Note that in Wikipedia articles one should write 5 × 3 rather than 5 x 3. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 20:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:And if you cannot make × conveniently, it's &­times­;. [[User:Tamfang|—Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 03:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
== [[Brownian motion and Riemann zeta function]] ==
Hi everyone,
I started an article on the relationship between the [[Brownian motion and Riemann zeta function]], which is mainly based on the [[Brownian excursion|excursion theory]] of the Brownian motion. The user @[[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] inserted a template claiming multiple things such as ''original research'' and ''no significant coverage''. I would like some other opinion on this.
There are a couple of articles (linked in the wiki article) but there is a whole chapter in the book ''"[[Marc Yor]] and Roger Mansuy - Aspects of Brownian Motion"'' and some results also appear in the book ''"Marc Yor and Daniel Revuz - Continuous martingales and Brownian motion"''. The latter is one of the standard references on Brownian motion and [[Marc Yor]] was one of the leading experts on stochastic processes.
This is an advanced topic and hence there is less coverage, but I don't see how this violates the ''no significant coverage'' rule. The topic itself was also explored by other people such as [[David Williams (mathematician)]], Anton Thalmeier or [[Persi Diaconis]]. So it is not original research, although it was shaped by Yor, [[Jim Pitman]] and [[Philippe Biane]].
Although the article focuses on excursion theory, there are more connections between Gaussian processes and the Riemann zeta function for example in [[random matrix theory]] (e.g. Fyodorov, Hiary and Keating - Freezing Transition, Characteristic Polynomials of Random Matrices, and the Riemann Zeta-Function).
I don't see how this is not relevant for Wikipedia. Lastly I decided to create a separate article on this topic since it deals with an advanced probability topic and not solely with analytical number theory. Therefore I thought it makes sense to not include everything in the Riemann zeta function article. BTW: it's the second time the user questions the notability of my articles. Regards--[[User:Tensorproduct|Tensorproduct]] ([[User talk:Tensorproduct|talk]]) 14:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
:For rigor, my tagging, which also included duplicate citations and unsourced claims was standard [[WP:NPP]], and cited [[WP:SYNTH]], not what is stated above. I also restored a previous tag from an earlier NPP review by [[User:Alpha3031|<bdi>Alpha3031</bdi>]] of essay-like which was removed twice without explanation. One of the duplicate references has since been removed, but the article has repeated sources in the bibliography and references which is certainly duplication. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 14:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
::1) You added the "duplicate citation" not in your original edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brownian_motion_and_Riemann_zeta_function&diff=prev&oldid=1304338560 diff=prev&oldid=1304338560] and you also didn't mention it on my wall. You added it after I edited the article again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brownian_motion_and_Riemann_zeta_function&diff=prev&oldid=1304345478].
::2) I removed the "essay-like" template because I heavily changed the introduction since then. The previous introduction was essay-like but I don't think the current on is. Besides no one said that the new one is.
::3) You add the unnessecary comment "according to whom?" on the statement "this is not the only process that follows this distribution." which should obviously be clear since there are at least 2 processes mentioned in the article.--[[User:Tensorproduct|Tensorproduct]] ([[User talk:Tensorproduct|talk]]) 14:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
::: I have assessed the article and removed most of the tags. I am already familiar with the papers cited in the article, and it is clearly notable and not synthesis. There are duplications of citations in the References/Bibliography section, so I left that tag. [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 15:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] Thank you very much for confirming that this is not original research and for removing the tags. Have a nice day!--[[User:Tensorproduct|Tensorproduct]] ([[User talk:Tensorproduct|talk]]) 15:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC).
{{hat|Off topic}}
The problem resolved, thanks to @[[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]]. To share some background, the user Ldm1954 also tried to prevent another article I wrote about [[Benjamin Schlein]] with the argument, that he is not an important scientist. Schlein was [[Editor-in-chief]] for the most prestigious journal in [[functional analysis]]: the [[Journal of Functional Analysis]]. And Schlein received "Hausdorff Chair" at the [[University of Bonn]], one of the most prestigious award for mathematics professors in Germany (and Schlein wrote an article with [[Terence Tao]] btw.). Also for you @[[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] to know.--[[User:Tensorproduct|Tensorproduct]] ([[User talk:Tensorproduct|talk]]) 21:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:This is a gross misrepresentation of those events. A basic and important principle of Wikipedia editing is that it is important to [[WP:FOC|not personalize disagreements]] and to [[WP:AGF|act on the presumption that other editors are acting in good faith]], which is obviously the case in the disagreement here as well as the earlier one that you (inexplicably) are rehashing. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 21:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:JayBeeEll|JayBeeEll]] Can you prove how this is a "gross misrepresentation" of these events? I might was wrong and misinterpreted the actions of this user. But I never said that this user did not act in good faith - I am sorry if you understood that. And I understand that it was misleading when there were tags like ''"This article does not cite any sources containing significant coverage."'' when I quoted a standard reference on the [[Brownian Motion]] by one of the biggest experts of Brownian motion: [[Marc Yor]].--[[User:Tensorproduct|Tensorproduct]] ([[User talk:Tensorproduct|talk]]) 21:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Can you prove}} No, social interaction is not part of mathematics, I cannot "prove" anything. I did, however, observe the events at the time, and I have observed a repeated pattern on your part of inappropriately personalizing disputes, imputing bad motivations to other people when more plausible and innocuous explanations are available, and now also grudge-holding and axe-grinding. None of these behaviors are appropriate on Wikipedia; you can read the links in my previous message to understand why. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 22:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:I was in the process of responding to [[User:Tensorproduct|Tensorproduct]], but [[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] already did so I will just point to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_Schlein&action=history article history]. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 21:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::Where does the article history contradict my premise? I am a mathematician who writes articles and you tried to prevent the Schlein.--[[User:Tensorproduct|Tensorproduct]] ([[User talk:Tensorproduct|talk]]) 22:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
== Expert opinion needed on Draft:Jesús Guillera ==
An expert opinion (and edits) is needed on [[Draft:Jesús Guillera]]. The page is on a mathematician who is mainly self-taught and spent much of his life teaching in secondary schools. My first reaction was to decline the draft, but when I checked his {{Google Scholar|name=cited|id=p13LwaoAAAAJ}} his h-factor is 19 with several cited more than 100 times. There are at least a couple of pages on him [https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2015/04/01/inenglish/1427892395_607702.html] [https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion191.html].
He certainly does not fit a conventional [[WP:NPROF]] pass, but might be unconventionally notable. Some editing would be needed. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 12:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
: It seems like a really interesting and worthwhile article, but it definitely doesn't meet [[WP:PROF]], and I don't see [[WP:GNG]] saving it on the basis of one or two citations. [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 22:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for your time. How could I appeal the decision? Jesus Guillera is considered a "Ramanujan" type genius and experts like Doron Zeilberger
::and
:::@[[User:Lucymarti|Lucymarti]], you need to read [[WP:NPROF]], [[WP:SIGCOV]] & [[WP:SIGCOV]], then read them again. You need to find articles that discuss him in detail. The El Pais article is one, can you find 3 or so more? Testimony will not help. Detailed math reviews of his papers would.
:::If you improve the page enough it should pass after resubmission. It was not a terminal decision, but you cannot appeal it [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 01:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Do articles in Spanish count? [[User:Lucymarti|Lucymarti]] ([[User talk:Lucymarti|talk]]) 03:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, any language. [[User:Tamfang|—Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 04:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I have added more citations. Any feedback is welcome and I would appreciate it! [[User:Lucymarti|Lucymarti]] ([[User talk:Lucymarti|talk]]) 13:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::You can also ask for opinions at [[WP:Teahouse]]. Ultimately, the status of the draft article would be determined at [[WP:AFD]] if the draft was moved to article space, and then nominated for deletion. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 02:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
:There are more news articles linked from his personal webpage https://anamat.unizar.es/jguillera/media.html – I'd generally be inclined to keep articles like this, though perhaps more effort should be made to avoid puffery. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 20:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
== Mathematician not currently listed in WIkipedia ==
For Wikipedia Requested Article page.
Possible category: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Missing mathematicians
Stephen Charles Locke
What makes this case interesting:
1. International Champion 1974 Putnam Team Competition (age 21); success on earlier competitions in H.S. in Canada
2. Ph.D. in Mathematics with close to 50 journal articles
3. High ranking black belts in two martial arts: Judo and Jujutsu
4. A conjecture that generated interest in the faulty hypercube community.
Please use whatever is appropriate from this rough draft.
Stephen Charles Locke (born 1953) is a English, Canadian and American Mathematician. He is a professor of Mathematics and Statistics at Florida Atlantic University, and has twice served as the Chair of that department.
Early Life. Locke was born in London, U.K., in 1953, moved to Canada in 1958, and then to the U.S.A. in 1981. He holds passports from each of these countries.
In Ontario, he attended two elementary schools in Barrie [Hillcrest and Prince of Wales] , one in Port Hope [Central], one in Brampton [Gordon Graydon], and three in Bramalea [Aloma, Clark, Dorset], before attending Bramalea Secondary School. In Grade ten, his Math teacher, Mr. Burke, helped register him for the Junior Mathematics Contest, and Locke placed fourth in Canada the next year. In grade twelve, Locke placed third in Canada on the Descartes contest. Later, in 1974, Locke placed in the top ten on the William Lowell Putnam Competition, and was a member of the winning Putnam team that year.
Locke earned all three degrees from the University of Waterloo, a B.Math. in 1974, an M.Math. in 19675, and a Ph.D. in 1982. His Dissertation was title "Extremal Properties of Paths, Cycles, and k-Connected Subgraphs of Graphs. His doctoral advised was Adrian Bondy. Other members of his doctoral committee were William Tutte, Ron Read, Bela Bollobas, Ian Munro. Also in attendance at the defense were Laszlo Lovasz, Vera Sos, Jack Edmonds, Bill Cook. (The last sentence could be hard to verify.)
Publications. Locke has published approximately fifty research articles. A list of publications is available from MathSciNet or from Google Scholar. Locke has graduated four Ph.D. students, the most recent in August 2025. Locke's early area of interest was how simple conditions on connectivity and minimum degree force graphs to have many long cycles. In 2018, Locke began publishing on Combinatorial Games.
Listing which journal articles are the most interesting is rather subjective. The papers on relative lengths of paths and cycle show a marked contrast between 2-connected and 3-connected graphs. The paper on cycles through three vertices in 2-connected graphs, led to other researchers working on cycles through k+1 vertices in k-connected graphs. The paper 11/30 is also of note.
Locke also solved problems from the Monthly and other journals (starting in 1976), and proposed problems for those journals. One of these problems, does an (n+2)-dimensional hypercube always have a Hamilton cycle, even after deleting n vertices from each parity class, caught the attention of some researchers in the fault-tolerance community. Another problem asks if, under certain conditions on degree sums and distances, a graph always has a non-separating copy of a any given tree on n vertices. The current work almost achieves the suggested bound.
Locke's two most frequently cited papers, according to Google Scholar are:
The subchromatic number of a graph, MO Albertson, ST Hedetniemi, RE Jamison, SC Locke, Annals of Discrete Mathematics 39(1989), 33-49
Largest bipartite subgraphs in triangle‐free graphs with maximum degree three, JA Bondy, SC Locke
Journal of graph theory 10(1986), 477-504.
The MathSciNet review for
Cycles and paths through specified vertices in k-connected graphs,
Y Egawa, R Glas, SC Locke, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 52(1991), 20–29
refers to this as an excellent paper.
Hobbies. Locke has a seventh degree black belt (shichidan) in Judo from the United States Judo Association, and a sixth degree black belt (rokudan) in Jujutsu from the American Traditional Jujutsu Association. In Canada, he studied for a year or more under Wayne Erdman, a Pan-Am Champion. He founded Tomodachi Judo club in 1990. The club has been a 501(c)(3) charity since 1993.
Minor interest in languages. Not fluent in any of these, but he studied French, German, Latin, Russian, Japanese, in High School and/or University and played with Old English.
Mid-level duplicate bridge player but played very infrequently the last several years.
Family. Parents: Kenneth and Lily Locke. Wife: Joanne Thomson Locke. Sons: Daniel (Rin) and Geoffrey. Siblings: Jacquie Redwood, Graeme Locke, Sharon Clarke.
https://www.math.fau.edu/people/faculty/lockes.php
https://www.fau.edu/registrar/university-catalog/catalog/faculty/
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=4r2jkAMAAAAJ&hl=en
https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet/author?authorId=115185
https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=23366
The 1974 William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition. The American Mathematical Monthly 81(1974), page 821.
https://members.atja.org/Sys/PublicProfile/66640220/6395436
https://www.usja.net/member/profile/5202
https://pjm.ppu.edu/sites/default/files/papers/PJM_April_2017_0.pdf [[Special:Contributions/131.91.7.56|131.91.7.56]] ([[User talk:131.91.7.56|talk]]) 21:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
:Citation counts in the double digits, a low-level administrative role, student competitions, and hobbies are not going to provide evidence of notability through [[WP:PROF]]. We are missing articles on many significantly more notable mathematicians (for instance, see the many redlinks at [[:Category talk:Fellows of the American Mathematical Society]]). And this is the wrong place to place your drafts. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
== Major Rewrite of the "Half range Fourier series" Article ==
Hello all,
I've recently expanded the article for the [[half range Fourier series]] from a stub to a slightly more detailed article. I've:
# Included inline citations (previously missing)
# Added a clearer definition of the series and it's uses
# Added an explanation of what goes into deciding between a sine/cosine series
# Expanded the worked example
# Added an animated plot demonstrating convergence of the example result
I'd appreciate it if someone familiar with Fourier analysis could review for accuracy and suggest improvements to it. About 1/2 of the article is dedicated to working the example in detail, so I think that expanding the prose section could be worthwhile. Adding another example would also help the article be more general.
Feedback is much appreciated. Thanks! [[User:Owen Reich|Owen Reich]] ([[User talk:Owen Reich|talk]]) 02:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
:Maybe worth mentioning topics like [[Discrete cosine transform]] and [[Chebyshev polynomials]]. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 20:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
==Michael Aschbacher==
Would another editor or editors please take a look at the section "Classification of finite simple groups" in the [[Michael Aschbacher]] article? It has three paragraphs that paraphrase a significant chunk of an article in ''Social Studies of Science''. I suspect that probably a briefer summary of the SSS article is appropriate, but that the amount paraphrased there is probably [[WP:UNDUE]]. It also tends to single Aschbacher out for criticism, which may raise [[WP:BLP]] issues. I feel too close to finite group theory (and have met Aschbacher once or twice), and do not want to be the one who picks out what is due/undue here. [[User:Russ Woodroofe|Russ Woodroofe]] ([[User talk:Russ Woodroofe|talk]]) 11:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
: I've read the paper, and thus seems like a fair summary. That paper references a lot of more primary literature, such as Gorenstein's personal reflections, and the few paragraphs in the article might benefit from better attribrution. [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 12:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::I agree that it's a fair summary. My concern was about [[WP:DUE]] criticism of a living person sourced to the journal literature in social studies of mathematics. For one thing, the criticism "researchers no longer read papers as independent documents, but rather ones that required the context of its author" seems like one that applies to the entire Classification of Finite Simple Groups, not just to Aschbacher's contributions (and indeed more widely in modern mathematics, i.e. to projects like the Four Color Theorem). Looking again, perhaps the second and third paragraphs should be combined and streamlined? On the other hand, should some related material also be in the [[Classification of finite simple groups]] article? [[User:Russ Woodroofe|Russ Woodroofe]] ([[User talk:Russ Woodroofe|talk]]) 09:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::: That last point seems like a pretty strong one. [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 21:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::It does read a little odd for what's supposed to be a biographical page about Aschbacher. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 03:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::: Everyone satisfied with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Aschbacher&diff=prev&oldid=1305912082 this]? [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 20:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think that's an improvement; thanks. I do wonder a little about calling his papers "very difficult to read", which kind of sounds like turning a judgment call into an absolute fact. There's a difference between having a reputation for impenetrability and being truly, objectively impenetrable. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 21:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::: I mean, it is well-supported by the source. (It's nice to see this validated by well-researched summaries of secondary sources, rather than painful memories of graduate school.) [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 22:04, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::: Perhaps a synonym like "challenging", "demanding", or "formidable" would seem less judgmental. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 22:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I think a phrasing tweak of that nature could make the passage less judgmental and more informative. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 00:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
I like the change in general, but agree with the spirit of some of the comments. I tried to rework the first sentence, but found it easier to rework the entire paragraph. What do y'all think about the following? {{tq|While Aschbacher's ideas were held in esteem by the group theory community, his writing style drew complaints. Some commented that his proofs lacked explanations of very sophisticated counting arguments. The difficulty in reading his papers became more pronounced as the papers became longer, with even some of his coauthors finding their joint papers hard to read. The challenge in understanding Aschbacher's proofs was attributed not to a lack of ability, but rather to the complexity of the ideas he was able to produce. This was part of a general trend where researchers working on the Classification of Finite Simple Groups began to view papers as requiring the context of their authors, rather than as independent documents. As a result, responsibility of finding errors in the classification problem was up to the entire community of researchers rather than just peer-reviewers alone.}} The one substantive change is to identify the move towards attention to the authors of a paper as a broader trend, which the source also does (the Aschbacher paragraph is in the midst of a section talking about similar trends with Gorenstein and others). [[User:Russ Woodroofe|Russ Woodroofe]] ([[User talk:Russ Woodroofe|talk]]) 10:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what "requiring the context of their authors" is intended to mean here. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 11:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:: Thank you! Perhaps better phrasing would replace {{tq| view papers as requiring the context of their authors, rather than as independent documents}} with {{tq | view papers as being reliable because of the reputation of their authors and their previous work, rather than as self-contained documents}}? [[User:Russ Woodroofe|Russ Woodroofe]] ([[User talk:Russ Woodroofe|talk]]) 12:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::That is much clearer, thanks! —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 12:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I went ahead and put my suggested paragraph (with modification after comment of David Eppstein) in the article. If I have misread the opinions here, then please feel free to modify or revert. [[User:Russ Woodroofe|Russ Woodroofe]] ([[User talk:Russ Woodroofe|talk]]) 12:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
== [[Transfinite number]] merge ==
I've started a discussion about merging [[Transfinite number]] into [[Infinity]]. If you have a minute, please feel free to contribute to the discussion [[Talk:Transfinite number#Merge into Infinity?|here]]. <span class="nowrap">– [[User:Farkle Griffen|Farkle Griffen]] ([[User talk:Farkle Griffen|talk]])</span> 15:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
== Cyclotomic pre-polynomials ==
Hungarian mathematician {{ill|Kéri Gerzson|hu}} has started an article [[Cyclotomic pre-polynomial]] and added some to [[Chebyshev polynomials]] based on his book:
: Kéri, Gerzson (2021): Compressed Chebyshev Polynomials and Multiple-Angle Formulas, Omniscriptum Publishing Company, ISBN 978-620-0-62498-7
published by [[OmniScriptum]], which seems somewhere between self-publishing and a vanity press. The only other source I can find mentioning this name is Kéri's paper,
: {{cite journal |last=Kéri |first=Gerzson |year=2022 |title=The factorization of compressed Chebyshev polynomials and other polynomials related to multiple-angle formulas |journal=Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae Sectio Computatorica |volume=53 |doi=10.71352/ac.53.093 |doi-access=free |pages=93–108 }}
It looks like a good faith effort, but probably runs afoul of Wikipedia policies about original research, notability, and maybe self promotion.
I tried leaving a message on his talk page about notability and original research, but without reply. I imagine there has been other published literature about more or less the same topic in the past, but I don't feel motivated to do a careful search about it. I figured I'd ask here instead of immediately sending the article to AFD. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 15:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
: Okay, I got a reply at his talk page. If anyone is practiced at helping Wikipedia-newcomer scholars, feel free to chime in there. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 16:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
== [[Algebraic-group factorisation algorithm]] ==
I'm not an expert, and have only taught up to 7th grade math and one lesson plan on Hamiltonians. Can someone with more knowledge and ability please source this article? [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 22:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
: Thanks, I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algebraic-group_factorisation_algorithm&diff=prev&oldid=1306101770 proposed it for deletion]. It doesn't make much sense. [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 23:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:I was able to find a source and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algebraic-group_factorisation_algorithm&oldid=1306152929 added it to the article]. I also removed the PROD added by @[[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] as I believe this somewhat addresses the issue of being unverified, but I will need to do some work to match the article with what's here and other sources to improve understandability. I have also seen at least two pages link this article off-wiki, so something tells me that perhaps this topic might be notable enough should we be able to find non-circular sourcing. [[User:Gramix13|Gramix13]] ([[User talk:Gramix13|talk]]) 06:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
== Examples in [[Bayes' theorem]] ==
The [[Bayes' theorem]] article has a lengthy section of "Examples" that includes no sources and is written in a rather [[WP:NOTTEXTBOOK|textbook-style]] manner. Contrast it with [[Pythagorean theorem]], for instance, which doesn't do anything one would call an "example" until the passage about Pythagorean triples. It's not exactly the same situation, of course, since the cornucopia of different proofs is a much bigger deal for the Pythagorean theorem, but even so, in that article we don't have a whole section where a ladder is leaned against a wall, a jogger crosses a field diagonally, etc. This seems like a situation that needs some work. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 05:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:If including examples about how to plug numbers into the formula is a good idea here (and maybe it is), we should probably go to standard statistics books and use theirs. The current ones read rather like an enthusiastic Wikipedian made them up 20 years ago based on the general themes of the examples they remembered seeing in class. We can do better, I think. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 05:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::The introduction to the article includes an example which is not discussed in the article and thus not sourced. I suggest concentrating on one good sourced example in the body of the article and summarizing it in the intro. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 14:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I like that idea. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 21:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:And another thing: is [https://www.cuemath.com/data/bayes-theorem/ CueMath] (currently reference 25) a reliable source? It looks to be yet another [[EdTech]] company website, and the writing is not all that clear throughout. Maybe not the most objectionable page, but it does have the feel of a source plugged in because it was the first to come up in a Google search. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 05:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::I think tag these sections. There is no shortage of "real-world" illustrations in well-known textbooks (e.g. Berger). [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 21:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I've tagged the completely unreferenced section and marked several other passages more specifically. If anyone is fresh from teaching a semester of probability theory, those {{tl|cn}} tags are good candidates to pick off. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 23:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::: This is doing psychic damage to anyone you have just described. But fair. [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 23:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
== Second pair of eyes on [[List of polyhedral stellations]] ==
Can somebody (with better access to these sources) check to see if this massive 25k byte expansion to the article is actually sourced properly. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
== [[Lattice point]] ==
Since 2004 (when it was created by {{ping|Charles Matthews}}), [[Lattice point]] has been a redirect to [[Lattice (group)]]. In my experience, it is frequently the case that the term "lattice point" specifically means a point of the [[integer lattice]] {{tmath|\Z^n}} in {{tmath|\R^n}}, rather than a point in some other (or a generic) lattice. My instinct was partially validated by looking at the incoming links to [[Lattice point]]; some of them (like from [[Gaussian integer]], [[Equation]], and [[Pi]]) clearly are about the specific lattice, but at least some others (e.g., from [[Unit cell]]) mean something more generic. Since this redirect has been there for more than 20 years, I thought I would get other opinions before boldly changing the target. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 21:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:I think "lattice point" just refers to any point in a lattice, no? If one type of lattice is more commonly discussed than others, it might be a good idea to call it out specifically near the beginning of [[Lattice (group)]]. More generally, [[Lattice (group)]] would in my opinion benefit from some amount of copyediting/rewriting with the goal of making it more accessible, following [[Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable]]. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 21:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::'''Comment''': "lattice point" is a term commonly used in crystallography - see for example [[Bravais lattice]]. There it is not always talking about something equivalent to the integer lattice: crystals are not always (from the point of view of their Euclidean geometry) of that type, but may be based on other three-dimensional lattices. The [[Eisenstein integer]]s form an example from pure mathematics. So I would say the current redirection is the useful one. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] ([[User talk:Charles Matthews|talk]]) 05:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I agree that the phrase "lattice point" is a perfectly good and used phrase for "element of a lattice". It is also a perfectly good and used term for specifically an element of the integer lattice Z^n. My concern is that the second usage is (I think) more common, and specifically that the usage of the redirect on Wikipedia is more strongly attached to the (more elementary) second use, whereas the target is the first use. This is perhaps complicated by the fact that sometimes a statement about meaning 2 is also valid for meaning 1. Here's a more systematic analysis of the 14 articles at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Lattice_point:
:::* [[Dislocation creep]], [[Minkowski–Hlawka theorem]], [[Unit cell]]: definitely meaning 1
:::* [[Reeve tetrahedra]], [[Proofs of quadratic reciprocity]], [[Continued fraction]], [[Gaussian integer]], [[Pi]], [[Equation]]: definitely meaning 2
:::* [[Kemnitz's conjecture]], [[Vojtěch Jarník]], [[Diophantine geometry]]: IMO meaning 2 is clearly intended although possibly these are situations where a statement about Z^2 generalized to all planar lattices
:::* [[Thomas Zaslavsky]]: ambiguous in context but I think more likely meaning 2 than meaning 1
:::* [[List of mathematical properties of points]]: who knows?
:::This (which I admit is partly subjective) reinforces my prior expectation that an editor who adds a WL to the phrase "lattice point" is probably expecting it to go to an article about points in Euclidean space with integer coordinates, not to an article about general lattices. I propose to change the target to [[Integer lattice]] and to adjust the text/link at the three articles where the redirect is being used with its current meaning. (FWIW I have also just created a redirect [[Integer lattice point]].)
:::I also agree that the article [[Lattice (group)]] is way more technical, especially at the beginning, than it needs to be. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 20:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I think having [[lattice point]] go to [[integer lattice]] seems unjustifiably specific. There are many sources (e.g. ''[[Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups]]'') which use the name "lattice point" to refer to points in all sorts of lattices. As a concrete data point, there are some 17k results on Google scholar for «"lattice point" hexagonal». If you want to go through every example of {{code|[[lattice point]]}} and change it to {{code|[[integer lattice point|lattice point]]}} where that seems the most relevant, I don't think anyone would complain though. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 07:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
== Asking for review of [[Bernoulli's method]] ==
As the main contributor to [[Bernoulli's method]], it seemed improper for me to assign rankings, so I asked for help with importance in the article's [[Talk:Bernoulli's method|talk]] page last May, but got no response. Thought I should try and highlight it here. Appreciate any help. [[User:Basilelp|Basilelp]] ([[User talk:Basilelp|talk]]) 21:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:One objective way to ''rate'' articles is to use the [[User:Evad37/rater|Rater]] which I applied. It compares the structure of the content to other articles and works well for Start/C/B. It doesn't say anything about the quality of the content itself and it does not address ranking which seems to be subjective. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 23:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think that the article rankings are that important. You can pick whatever feels right to you, and if someone cares enough to be upset over that, they can change it. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 02:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::It is definitely allowed and acceptable to assign the ratings stub/start/C/B to articles you wrote yourself. Same for importance rankings. If anyone disagrees, they can change them, and as noted above ratings in general are not that important. But for the more advanced ratings (GA and FA) there are other procedures you have to go through. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 06:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:Personally, I prefer to rate C, for lack of sources. Hopefully, I'm allowed to give some tags. [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 09:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::I tend to agree. It's close to B but entire unsourced sections drop it down to C. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:You should feel free to apply any rating from "Start" through "B" to articles you wrote yourself, trying to give your best fair assessment. If someone disagrees they can change it or start a discussion. After skimming through, I would rate article as a "B".... but the rating is pretty arbitrary and doesn't matter much. The main use I have for these ratings is that the set of articles with high view count and/or "priority" rating but low "quality" rating are an excellent place to look for high-impact articles to improve. If you want to get a little green badge or gold star, you have to do a bit more work to tick items off their respective checklists, but even those ratings are quite variable in practice and should not be taken to mean more than that one editor has listed an article for badging and another editor has reviewed it against the checklist (with a highly variable level of rigor). –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 00:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
== Citation spam ==
After noticing that a very recent journal article without any citation add been added the the [[Poisson distribution]] article by the recently created account @DoctorThere, I investigated a bit a so that this article has recently been spammed across various wikis by legitimate-looking accounts with similar names (e.g, CarlosSantana'''95''' and MadameButterfly'''96'''). To me that (strongly) suggests citation spam. Should I be bold and just remove any mention of Guerriero and Tallini's article from all wikis? [[User:Malparti|Malparti]] ([[User talk:Malparti|talk]]) 13:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:It could be that the citations are common because a newer paper reference it and so several experts in multiple wikis are adding it because of recently see it. Or there may be some other reason. Just because two people in a group of users have two numbers at the end of their username does not mean the whole group or even two people in the group are the same person. I think it is a bit of an overreaction, but if the cited material in the other wikis do not add to the respective wikis then the editors of those wikis will probably remove it. I do admit that adding a citation of an article that is over 10 years old to an introductory topic article is a bit suspicious. [[User:EulerianTrail|EulerianTrail]] ([[User talk:EulerianTrail|talk]]) 16:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
| |||