Talk:Hawaiian earring

message: The article states: "It has been shown that $G$ embeds into the inverse limit of the free groups with $n$ generators, $F_n$, where the map from $F_n$ to $F_{n+1}$ is just the one sending the generators of $F_n$ to the first n generators of $F_{n+1}$."
This cannot be correct, as in the inverse limit, there is not a map from $F_n$ to $F_{n+1}$ but rather from $F_{n+1}$ to $F_n$.  Indeed, the direct limit given by the natural maps from $F_n$ to $F_{n+1}$ is merely the free group on countably infinitely many generators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.164.170 (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2006
When comparing the Hawaiian earring to the infinite wedge of circles $H'$, the article claims that $H'$ " is the one-point compactification of a countable disjoint union of open intervals."  This can't be true, since the infinite wedge of circles is not compact (taking the interior of each 1-cell and a small neighborhood of the point at which they meet gives an infinite open cover with no proper subcover).  It seems that this has also caused confusion in the article on Quotient Spaces, which refers to R/Z as the Hawaiian earring.
BarrySimington 16:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct?

message: The article claims the fundamental group's abelianization "has no known simple description", but Katsuya Eda gives such a description on his home page. I just don't know what "Z-adic completion" means. Ntsimp (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abelianization of the fundamental group 

message: Does it seem strange that what one editor calls a copy of another editor's comment is not a duplication of what the first editor wrote? Hyacinth (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy

message: Where does this article lack inline citations? What claims need citing? What kind of citations does the page need? Hyacinth (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't any inline citations in the article at all, just a list of "References". An inline citation is one where a footnote symbol (typically a number in brackets) is found next to the statement it is used to verify, and refers to a specific source found in the References section. They're standard on Wikipedia, but this article doesn't have any yet. Ntsimp (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also standard to give an explanation on a talk page when one adds a tag to an article. Hyacinth (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline citations

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. This is a highly participated RM with offsite encouragement and the risk of heated feelings between participants. The COMMONNAME argument clearly supports the current title, while the arguments in favour of moving were rarely based in policy and seem to have frequently been made based on offwiki discussion between parties with little policy understanding. Several oppose !votes brought up the possibility of consensus changing in the future, which is an interesting hypothetical outside the scope of present discussion; all I can say is that this close does not prejudice a move if COMMONNAME genuinely changes, but that none of the supports were able to demonstrate such while the opposition demonstrated the opposite. Arguments that could permit a move in the presence of an ambiguous COMMONNAME were not made with any sophistication that could permit their consideration, nor was a convincing case even made that the COMMONNAME was ambiguous in the first place. (closed by non-admin page mover)  Vaticidalprophet 02:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hawaiian earring →  – The use of "Hawaiian" in Hawaiian earring originated in the 1950's to identify this space as being "exotic." It has no apparent connection to Hawaiian mathematicians. This particular use of "Hawaiian earring" perpetuations the association of Hawaii and Hawaiian native culture with that which is exotic. This kind of association is no longer acceptable. Moreover, this usage is not universally used in mathematics and there is substantial momentum to do away with it. The term "Hawaiian" no longer has a place being the title term for this page. The title of this page should be changed to "Infinite earring" or "Infinite earring space" and all instances of Hawaiian, perhaps with an exception of a remark clarifying the evolution of the name, should be removed. 
It is clear that the opposition has not attempted to actually parse mathematics references and has only conducted a quick internet search of the term "Hawaiian earring" which will obviously pull up the many references that do use this term. This space is called the "infinite earring" on Section 71 of James Munkres' book "Topology." This is the most commonly used textbook for teaching topology. This space is called the "shrinking wedge of circles" in Alan Hatcher's standard book "Algebraic topology." Some older texts use "clamshell." The term "Hawaiian earring" is indeed popular but is not standard. 
Jtbrazas (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: The second paragraph of the move proposal statement was added after I made the comment above. Before making that remark, I did web searches for both the current article name and the proposed article name. There were no exact hits for the proposed article name. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

text:  Sorry, but this is totally antithetical to policy. "But the published sources are wrong. Trust me, I know better than them" is not an effective argument here, especially when "wrong" is being used in a deontological rather than factual sense. If you haven't already, I suggest reading the supplement linked above by BarrelProof at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Your last sentence is getting closer to a policy-based argument, but even if the current name isn't universally used in RS, you haven't made an argument for why the proposed name better satisfies WP:CRITERIA. Colin M (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Worth noting here also that both Hatcher and Munkres use *different* terms for it. If they both used "infinite earing" that argument might have some validity. But they don't, so all they suggest is that there isn't a strong consensus, not that there's a consensus for some other specific term. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

text: On Math Stack Exchange I get 130 results for "Hawaiian earring" and 23 for "infinite earring". I think you might have forgotten to enclose the latter term in quotes when you got the 80 figure? (Though I don't think it's particularly consequential either way, since user-generated content doesn't really help us determine the commonly used name in reliable sources.) Colin M (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Interesting! Reading that particular policy feels a bit incongruous to this discussion, only because a large amount of mathematics produced (in English) is user-generated. Various professional mathematicians have their own blogs and websites where they share mathematics outside the scope of textbooks or published articles. Many such blogs are considered credible and are often invaluable resources within the community — some have even significantly changed research directions for a whole (sub)field. Sites like MSE and MathOverflow are particular touchstones for many in the mathematical community. I would encourage whoever makes this decision to consider this particular kind of user-generated content. Your point still stands, though; I checked and it does seem as though I forgot to use quotations when finding those numbers. Santana Afton (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to go further into the weeds, but just FYI, the blog case is covered by WP:SELFPUB, which does allow blogs and other self-published sources to be admitted as reliable if authored by established subject-matter experts. This could be applied to content on a site like StackExchange as well, but it would require scrutinising individual contributions on a case-by-case basis. Colin M (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

text: The reference to Math StackExchange posts is pure astroturfing.  One day ago, there were a mere 2 posts on MSE that contained "infinite earring".  All of the other results were edits that you (Santana Afton) personally made a few hours ago.  You can see the most recent editors of the search results at https://math.stackexchange.com/search?tab=active&q=%22infinite%20earring%22. 69.203.83.19 (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, good catch. That's... not a good look. Colin M (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

text: That wasn't my intention, and as already discussed above, that point I made is moot. I had simply forgotten to add quotations when finding those numbers, and 130 vs 23 is not a good argument. I certainly didn't edit 80 posts by hand in the span of a half hour. Santana Afton (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 June 2021