Talk:Algebraic topology

message: This article uses too much terminology from the field that it is concerned with and is thus only of use and interest to people immersed in said field. It does not serve to introduce the topic or to explain it in any way to someone who does not have some prior training in the field. This makes it unsuited as an entry in a general encyclopedia and makes it more suited to a specialized mathematical encyclopedia. Please rewrite it to include more introductory explanations and examples.
41.204.193.43 (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that it is as easily re-written as you suggest.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.52.243 (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the reply. I would also like to add that lots of topics in math have the property that you need some type of basic knowledge (master or sometimes research training) to be able to grasp them; if you try to rewrite them in a more "understandable" style a layman will still not understand, while a person with enough prior knowledge will not get anything out of it either. (A trivial example I've noted is that articles write "topological equivalence" rather than homeomorphism. This is a disservice to everybody; the person that does not know any math will not get a better understanding, while say a student of math will wonder if this is a concept that he/she has not yet encountered, so will be forced to click the link.) But this property that topics are hard to understand the first time cannot be exclusive to math. For example, I don't know biology; still, I don't expect that articles that mention "mitochondria" should be rewritten so that "mitochondria" is replaced with "cell that generate energy". (Yes, I know that mitochondria is not a cell, but we have to keep it simple so that everyone understands.) 84.55.110.150 (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsuitable as a general encyclopedic entry

message: Why are there so many references and notes sourced to R. Brown in this article? I am sure he is a fine topologist, but he isn't completely dominant in the field and a lot of his cited articles look to be on specialized topics not really suitable for a general overview of algebraic topology. It seems like undue weight and possible ref spamming. --Mark viking (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I removed most of the material because it is not really good for an overview of algebraic topology, like you say, although it should probably be trimmed even more.Brirush (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  R. Brown 

message: Substituted at 01:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Algebraic topology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090604050453/http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~mas010/nonab-a-t.html to http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~mas010/nonab-a-t.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090604050453/http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~mas010/nonab-a-t.html to http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~mas010/nonab-a-t.html
*Added  tag to http://www.bangor.ac.uk/r.brown/topgpds.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified