Content deleted Content added
Line 341:
* Concerning Wikipedia article content: I regard there as being two approaches to article content: A narrow article that only talks about what is in the math article versus a more comprehensive article that does this and puts it into historical context. In mathematics and the sciences, it is often of interest to understand what led to an article and what an article has led to. In the case of Gödel's article, the Wikipedia article "Gödel's incompleteness theorems" is the comprehensive article and ''On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems'' is the narrow article (it only contains publication info, outline of the paper, and a section on translations of the paper). I was thinking of having the same division with current Wikipedia article title being the more comprehensive article and another Wikipedia article (whose title would be the title of Cantor's article) that would be very narrow. It was a compromise measure I was proposing, but it obviously got nowhere and I only confused people. I take it that everyone wants just one Wikipedia article (which I think is the best way to go). --[[User:RJGray|RJGray]] ([[User talk:RJGray|talk]]) 17:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::I really don't think there's a choice here. If the article is about the paper, which I think it should be, then it should be named after the paper. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 17:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::I looked back and saw your examples. That is a point. Still, no one treats "Cantor's first set theory article" as a name of the paper (whereas for Alpher-Beta-Gamow they arguably do). The current title is a ''description''; that's what offends me the most about it. Descriptions are the last choice for WP article titles. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 17:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
| |||