Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Logic/Boolean algebra task force

message: Here are a few concerns that inspired me to start this task force
* The ongoing disagreements about how to organize this material have never been directly addressed with a broad enough scope to resolve them. Instead, they recur on individual talk pages, where only a few editors see them.
* Because of the cross-disciplinary nature of these articles (spanning at least computer science, logic, and mathematics), it's important that there are articles useful to people of all backgrounds, and that these are easy to locate. 
I hope that by taking a high-level view of all the articles we can find a way to organize these articles that makes sense to everyone. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns 

message: There are lots of redirects all over the place. I have introduced a certain degree of sanity, but it's still quite bad. Anybody who is interested in the details can find them here. The page has a list of the major Boolean algebra articles, each with a convenient "What links here" link. Since this should remain only a minor distraction, I would suggest to direct any discussions on what to do with the redirects to the associated talk page. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited Hans' page a little and transcluded it on the task force page. It may lead to ideas about better titles for articles or for topics our coverage has missed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: My rough idea for this project is to first make a rough list of how we wish things were organized, and then worry about how to arrange the material we have (and write more) to match that organization. Here is the beginning of a proposal. Please feel free to annotate, expand, or strike it. Let's keep the comments in this section, so the outline is easy to read.— Carl (CBM · talk) 13:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In an ideal world 

message: Now that people have had a month's break from all this, do we have any sort of consensus on how to shrink the current crop of articles on Boolean algebra?  In particular what should be done about StuRat's article Boolean logic?  His article on Boolean algebra was substantially revised a year ago to address its many shortcomings.  This would have been progress had not StuRat disagreed that his original article had any shortcomings and reinstated the whole of the original under a new name, Boolean logic, where he is now defending it against all critics.
I gave a long laundry list of its shortcomings at Talk:Boolean_logic#Article_considered_substandard and StuRat responded by promising to "change the article where needed."   A month later all he's changed is to replace "or" by "and" in several places, so evidently he doesn't share my concerns and considers the article fine as is.  User:Paul August says above that he "broadly agrees" with my proposal to slim things down to one introduction as long as there are also separate articles on "notable and separable" aspects, which seems to be the general consensus (I'm certainly all for that).
Does anyone else have concerns about Boolean logic?  And, with or without those concerns, does the article currently meet a Wikipedia need? Bear in mind Wikipedia's slogan (read the whole of the first paragraph).  I fully agree with Paul that we need consensus here ("partial correctness"), but we also need some movement towards consensus ("total correctness"/termination). --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've said this many times already: we should not have two introductory articles to the topic, and I think that Boolean algebra (introduction) is a good start. If Mr. StuRat has problems with it because it is only accessible to "PhDs", he can help improve the article by pointing out exactly where the problems are.  --Lambiam 03:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what role should Boolean logic play on Wikipedia, which claims to be "for a general audience?"  It seems to me that the article is in violation of Wikipedia:OWN.  Unlike other encyclopedias Wikipedia does not permit people to claim ownership of an article they wrote for Wikipedia, however attached they might be to their own work.  StuRat responded (21:42, Sept. 24, 2007) to the extreme editing his article had received earlier by reviving the whole of his original article under its present name of Boolean logic.  Is that a permissible response to editing, even when that editing was "merciless" as the guidelines put it?  If not then I suggest this revived article be dealt with in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, whether it be deletion or whatever.  Any other recommendations?  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A reasonable step would be to (again, perhaps) propose a merge of the articles and see what the reactions of various editors are. I tend to agree with a merge of Boolean algebra (introduction) and Boolean logic, and agree with Lambiam's comments above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: StuRat revived his article, in its original intact form, once before after I merged his and my articles.  I retained those parts of his article which I didn't object to, see Talk:Boolean_logic#Article_considered_substandard for the parts I did object to.  I've been hoping someone would spring to StuRat's defense and counter my objections.  Without that, if I do the merge again exactly the same material from Boolean logic will be retained.  Since it's already in Boolean algebra (introduction), this is essentially a no-op.  Please counter my objections so that we have some candidates for a real merge.  Or are people ok with a no-op merge which will leave Boolean algebra (introduction) unchanged? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One possible course of action in a case like this is to issue a "Request for comments". For an example, see the announcement here.  --Lambiam 16:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That example seems less critical since it's just one bit which moreover is currently set correctly ("a").  This one's a bigger one because it's a whole article we don't know what to do with.  If I were an outside observer I'd say just delete it, but as the main contributor to date to the competing article I have a nontrivial internal conflict of interest (or whatever the proper name for COI internal to Wikipedia is), so I'd feel more comfortable letting someone else step in here.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The same RFC procedure can be used for any dispute where the usual discussion fails to reach consensus and lead to a resolution. A possible alternative is to take Boolean logic to Articles for deletion (nominating the page to be redirected rather than totally deleted) but that procedure is more heavy-handed. Although it is decent to reveal your role in contributing to the article, you have no COI for this article in the Wikipedia sense, which is purely external; you might have one if an issue arose over the Sun logo or the article on dynamic logic.  --Lambiam 10:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel an RFC would be better than an AFD, not least because the goal is to merge the articles, not delete one of them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although as I pointed out, operationally there will be no difference given that the merge was already done before StuRat revived his version.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: March 2008

message: * Introduction to Boolean algebra: no strong opposition, but also no general enthusiasm. This can wait till the rest is in order and a need becomes apparent. If we don't have such an article, it is even more imperative that Boolean algebra contain an intro that is fully accessible for reders with just an exit-level high-school maths background.
* Boolean algebra: general agreement.
* Boolean logic: general agreement. We should perhaps wait with implementing this until Boolean algebra (and specifically the intro!) is in good shape.
* Boolean algebra (structure): general agreement.
* History of Boolean algebra: limited enthusiasm, but no opposition. Although this has no urgency, I think there is enough material for a full encyclopedic article.
* Applications of Boolean algebra: reactions ranging from enthusiasm to very weak support.
--Lambiam 10:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Summarizing the above:

message: More Awbrey/Gregbard/StuRat-type clean-up is needed at:
* Predicate variable
* Boolean-valued function
* Predicate (mathematical logic)
-- Tijfo098 (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More cleanup work 

message: Considering the goal to reduce duplication, will it be an improvement if the content of Two-element Boolean algebra gets merged into Boolean algebra (structure), replacing the first example there, getting instead a section on its own to which Two-element Boolean algebra then redirects?  --Lambiam 11:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a bad idea, as long as the section is kept short.  In my opinion there's not really a lot to say about the two-element algebra, but that doesn't always stop people from finding things to say. --Trovatore (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Meh, unlike the other articles this one has a clear scope. We even have something more trivial at Boolean domain. You should ask WT:WPM too. Not many people are watching this. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I left a note there myself. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I think that it is Boolean domain what has to be merged with "Two-element Boolean algebra", rather than to merge "Two-element Boolean algebra" to something else. First of all, it is the same thing. And it is very notable (apart of Boolean algebra (structure)) as a prominent model of truth values. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two-element Boolean algebra 

message: Several of the articles withing the scope of WP:BATF are close to the Good Article standard.  We should nominate some. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The two most obvious issues there that need fixing before nomination (to avoid a quick fail) are the lack of an inline citation for all claims, and the hidden text in "Axiomatics" (which vlolates WP:Manual of Style § Scrolling lists and collapsible content). A more minor issue is that the references are inconsistently formatted (a mix of CS1 and CS2). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of inline citations needs to be fixed.  The good article criteria do not require conformity to the whole of WP style, just to five parts, so while it would be nice to fix the other two, it should not be necessary. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good articlehood