Talk:Cantor's first set theory article: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:46, 13 February 2016

Revision as of 21:50, 13 February 2016

Line 39:

* If we drop the "Georg" in the Wikipedia article's title, a reader who is interested in Cantor can type "Cantor" into the Search box and see the Wikipedia article along with other articles about Cantor's work. Being a reader who uses this feature of the Search box when I'm curious about a mathematician's or scientist's work, I think "Cantor's first set theory article" would be more reader-friendly than "On a Property of the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers."

* As far as "article" vs. "paper". See [http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-research-article-and-vs-research-paper Difference Between Research Article and Research Paper]. Two items of interest: "• There is a trend to refer to term papers and academic papers written by students in colleges as research papers whereas articles submitted by scholars and scientists with their groundbreaking research are termed as research articles. • Research articles are published in renowned scientific journals whereas papers written by students do not go to journals."--[[User:RJGray|RJGray]] ([[User talk:RJGray|talk]]) 21:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

::# As to your first point: Yes, that's true, but that's an interesting story in itself, which as far as I can see (but I haven't read the article carefully yet), the article does not currently discuss, but should probably be added. As I'm sure you know, Cantor is thought to have chosen this (somewhat inferior) title deliberately, to avoid a confrontation with Kronecker. Dauben goes into some detail on this point, I believe (don't have him to hand unfortunately). In any case I don't see that this should determine what this article should be called. This article is about the paper, and the paper has that name, and I really think that ought to settle it. <small>Update &mdash; it looks like you say that the point about the reason for the title is covered in the article. I took a quick look, and I still don't see it; can you point me to it? I would expect it to be more prominent. </small>

::# As to typing in the search box, it works for redirects too. Try it. There is in any case going to be a redirect from the current title, so I don't really see a problem.

::# I still strongly prefer "paper". To me a "paper" is more academic; an "article" is more likely to be for mass consumption. Also a "paper" is more likely to be a primary source, whereas an "article" is probably a secondary or tertiary source. Also the interference issue is real; the word "article" invites confusion with Wikipedia articles, whereas "paper" does not. But in any case we don't need to decide that in this RM as the proposed title does not contain either word. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 21:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)