Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2004/Jan-Aug

message: I would like to reorganize some ring-theory-related pages a little bit, specifically these pages:
* Algebra over a field
* Division algebra
* Rig (algebra)
I would like to redo them as follows:
* Move algebra over a field to algebra (linear algebra).  Most of the links to this page are currently wrong, so I suspect the current page title is misleading.  
* Add a page algebra (ring theory), that talks about (associative) algebras over an arbitary base ring, and mention that associative algebras are the special case of algebras over a field.
* Add a page for nonassociative algebras, to talk about the general theory of nonassociative algebras.  While associative, Lie, and Jordan algebras are special cases, the general theory has a much different flavor.  Move the discussion of nonassociative division rings here.
* For division algebra, move the discussion about associative division algebras to division rings, which it currently overlaps with.  Move the discussion about nonassociative division algebras to nonassociative algebras.
* Redirect rig (algebra) to semiring, and mention that the term is sometimes used for semirings with zero and one.  This is also not standard terminology.  Semiring theorists call semirings with zero and one rigs approximately never.  As far as I can tell, the term is primarily used by category theorists. -- Walt Pohl 16:56, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is mostly OK by me. The non-associative stuff looks a bit as if it was imposed by a Cayley number fan. With due respect to Cayley, it's mostly as Walt says, and once Lie algebras and Jordan algebras are mentioned, the rest of the non-associative stuff is rather specialised. Charles Matthews 16:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ring theory pages 

message: A week or so back User:Fuelbottle created the MediaWiki pages Template:quantity, Template:change, Template:space and Template:structure, containing side-tables of links, and used the msg: function to display the relevant side-table on each of the pages listed underneath each of these categories on the main mathematics page. More recently User:TakuyaMurata has removed the side-tables from all of the articles in the quantity and space categories. Net result is that some articles have side-tables, but others do not. Can we discuss, and maybe reach a consensus, on whether these side-tables should be (a) removed across the board; or (b) re-instated; or (c) maybe retained in some modified form ? Gandalf61 13:03, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
:I would vote for (a) removed across the board. I also posted a reference at Wikipedia:Request for comments.-- Taku 00:29, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
::I agree - these boxes do nothing except take away space that would be better suited for tables and images that add content to the articles. Footers would be better if this type of navigation is needed at all, but frankly a link to the subject article which in turn has such a list would be better. --mav 07:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the effort Fuelbotgtle put into making the side tables, but I don't think they contribute much to the pages.  -- Walt Pohl 08:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I am ambiguous for either (b) or (c).  There are advantages and disadvantages to both side bar and footer.  Side-bar is more prominent, footer is less intrusive.  I appreciate the effort User:Fuelbottle put into making the side tables, and I think they are a great contribution to the pages.  I think the mentioned actions of User:TakuyaMurata were uncalled for, rude, subtracted from the overall clarity and navigability of the Mathematics pages, and added nothing. Kevin Baas 16:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I like a sidebar at the top of the page better -- (1) it shows related topics right away (put impt stuff up high where more people will see it) and (2) I think it's easier to read a vertical list than a row of items. FWIW, and thanks for your work on this. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:33, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: What I think is that (a) wikis do overlapping and parallel systems quite well (redundancy isn't a serious criticism), and (b) centralising, as a point of view, really is POV here (might be my POV). There just needs to be some reasonable agreement on what would be 'clutter' on a page. One footer is OK, surely. More than that ... I'm not sure. So, I get a picture of 'ideal footer' as containing 'stratum before' as well as 'on the same level as these other pages' info. Charles Matthews 09:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: MediaWiki Side Tables

message: I have posted a discussion document at User:Charles Matthews/WikiProjectMathematics thoughts; and invite people to comment (maybe there).
Charles Matthews 15:21, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Charles Matthews/WikiProjectMathematics thoughts]]

message: I was updating some information for Chern and encountered a typical problem in writing Chinese suranames.  In most regions that use traditional Chinesee people put the last name last, just like the western names.  However, in most regions that use simplified Chinese (except Singapore) people put the last name first.  When the two styles are mixed, like Dan Sun and Zheng Sining in the Chern article, it becomes confusing.  (In this case, Sun and Zheng are surnames.  But sometimes Dan Sun is written Sun Dan; and Zheng Sining, Sining Zeng!)
This has been a well-known problem for identifying Chinese on passports.  So what people sometimes do is to capitalize or put a red underline under the surname in passports.  I propose that we do the same here and
:capitalize the first instance of the surname of each Chinese mathemtician in an article-- at least when there is reasonable suspicion for ambiguity.
You can see whether capitalization is useful in the Chern article.
Thanks,
Peter Kwok 20:20, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
P.S.  I mistakenly added an entry for "Dan SUN".  Later I created another entry for "Dan Sun".  So the former should be deleted now.
:I took care of this deletion for you - I'm not sure if this followed policy but it seemed alright.
:Derrick Coetzee 00:33, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal on Chinese surnames 

message: I agree with your statement that mutual respect is
important.  I have always been polite and respectful
to you, and moreover, when I noticed your existence
I was glad to see another person contributing articles
on mathematics, and that remains my evaluation of your
work on Wikipedia.
You seem to think that I have targeted you some how.
I have not.  I do not edit articles without intending
some identifiable improvement.
You wrote: "Right now I find it hard to work in an
environment where style police who have nothing new to
add just run around to make other people write like them."
Would you tell me who those people are?  You seem to
think I am one such person.  I have contributed a far
larger number of new articles on mathematics than you
and most others, and a far greater amount of substantive
mathematical content to article initiated by others.
I also do minor edits such as a small spelling or
punctuation correction in a long article.  I did several of those in the article you created on the LYM inequality. You stated on the discussion page that those edits contribute nothing.  I disagree.  But if you don't agree that they contribute anything, that is not a reason to infer that I was personally targeting you.  After I created uses of trigonometry,  jengod made some small changes for which I saw no need.  It is possible that that person knows some reason of which I am unaware why the changes were improvements, and it is also possible that they are not.  Even if I disagreed with those edits, I would still conclude only that another person disagrees, and not that I am being targeted or attacked. 
As for moving "In mathematics..." to the beginning, there is a reason for that that I tried to explain to you earlier; I did it because I think the article is in several respects better that way, and I would be specific about that if you appeared to be interested.
You wrote: "I don't deny that some style changes are good, or even necessary, and I don't mind people overwriting articles with richer and better content.  It is the ones that added no substance got me.  I regard the "In mathematics" changes as cosmetic and think that we should give people more leeway on that issue.  If you disagree, fine; but let's draw a line somewhere."
Do you regard "cosmetic" as meaning unnecessary or bad?
Making an article esthetically better makes it easier
to understand and to remember.
                     
You wrote: "Now some people even begin to change journals' standard abbreviations to long names, which is not even recommended by Wikipedia!" ... because some readers may otherwise not understand the abbreviation.  If you disagree with that, you could say so, rather than acting as if there is something personal about it.
You wrote: "I believe some of the later changes were made
just to get me after I expressed my disagreement."  On this point I have good news that will reassure you.  You suggested that I may be among those doing this.  But I have not done this.  When I disagree with the way someone edits or with their opinions about how others should edit, I address the actual content of the disagreement, saying why I think what I think.  I do not personally attack them.
                   
You wrote, "Do those cosmetic changes really do the readers any good?".  I would say that if they do no good then they are _not_ cosmetic.  "Cosmetic" by definition means they make an esthetic improvement in the article, and therefore they do some good.
You wrote "If this place really believes in the "everything goes" philosophy, then do let things go.  However, if this place believes in maintaining a house style, then maybe we need some kind of guidelines or governing body to give users some protection."
_Some_ guidelines are in the style manual: usually the title word or title phrase is highlighted at its first appearance, one eschew's superfluously capitalized letters in section headings, etc.
You wrote: "I could have even mass reverted articles."  Did the things you object to happen in more than one article?  You have mentioned only one to me.  What were the others, if any? - Michael Hardy
:Michael - I'm sorry that my offer, made above, to deal with Peter's comments above by email was not taken up. This is really not a good discussion. I personally do think you have been stepping over the line recently, in edit summaries, and in other ways (I am not happy with a style change you made recently in something I wrote). Appeals to how many edits you make obviously carry a certain weight; but they don't actually make up for a constant refrain that others lack 'common sense', etc. 'Open sentence' is standard usage in parts of philosophical logic - whatever you may think of it.  And so on. I think you should accept that irritation has been caused, and try to work out how to go forward from here. There is nothing to be gained by 'winning' such an argument. There is also a guideline on escalation. We have to accept that there will be friction, from time to time; and not treat such occasions just as a rebuttal-fest. Charles Matthews 19:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Peter Kwok's concerns

message: I fear one of Charles Matthews' comments may be construed by some to mean I am one of the founders of Wikipedia.  In fact, Wikipedia was founded early in 2001 by Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales; the latter has put about $500,000 of his own money into the project.  I first edited articles here in October of 2002, if I recall correctly.  Axel Boldt was for some time the only person extensively editing mathematics articles here, and I surmise that he is the original creator of the list of mathematical topics.  Michael Hardy 01:50, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification: I am not one of the founders of Wikipedia 

message: A Clarification -- one more reason I prefer HTML. Besides lots of things not being able to render in HTML, there is another big problem. Many people urge me to change my preferences. But then a lot of expressions I wish were KEPT in TeX get changed to HTML when I don't want them to!! This happens for example at the article pi. Long, single-line expressions get chopped up and rendered often in a silly manner. Besides, for single-line, I WANT TeX. Why should I be force to give it up?? Revolver 09:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The preference "HTML if possible or else PNG" renders fractions as HTML, which looks terrible (at least in my browser). A possible solution is to change the software so that all single-line expressions are rendered as PNG, even if they could be rendered as HTML. With single-line expressions, I mean lines that contain only a ... construct, and possibly white space. I do not know how feasible this is technically. What do people think of this idea? -- Jitse Niesen 10:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A clarification

message: At User_talk:ShaunMacPherson, I have invited that person to discuss on this page his implicit decision to move hundreds of articles titled ABCD's theorem to ABCD's Theorem with a capital T, and similarly for conjectures, lemmas, axioms, etc.  In case anyone can be more effective in persuading him that I can, I mention that here.   (If you are Schaun MacPherson and do not wish to pursue the matter, please feel free to delete this section.) Michael Hardy 20:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think the word theorem, lemma etc. should be capitalized in this context. But it's a minority view. A number of editors threw out my preferences and capitalized them. Gadykozma 23:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Schaun MacPherson