Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2017/Aug

Question about two new mathematics journals

Hi all, There is a discussion here about two new mathematics journals, and whether they are (yet) suitable subjects for a Wikipedia article. Your thoughts are welcome. Thanks, JBL (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

MR, JfM, Zbl error checking

Please comment at Help talk:Citation Style 1#JFM error checking and other sections.

If someone has the exact specification for those identifiers, that would be much appreciated too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Adjoint representation of a Lie algebra

There's a clear consensus to merge Adjoint representation into Adjoint representation of a Lie algebra. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Lie algebra willing to do it? I'm too ignorant. Klbrain (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

A new editor that I think could use some assistance

Please see my discussion at User talk:Alireza Badali#User:Alireza Badali/A new version of Goldbach's conjecture concerning User:Alireza Badali/A new version of Goldbach's conjecture. It looks to me as though User:Alireza Badali could be a great help to this project given some guidance. I'm taking the liberty of pinging a random few of you who have edited recently. @Hasteur, In ictu oculi, and David Eppstein:. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Um... I'm not an abstract math editor. In my subjective view I think you hit the nail on the head that this reads like WP:OR and might be the basis of a published work. Thinking about a previous case where user's work here was pushed to mainspace only to find out that the user was using wikipedia as a staging ground for creating a published article in a journal (Affective piety) I think we might want to task the user if they're intending on submitting this to a journal, and if so CSD:G7 (Author self delete) so as to retain their copyright. Hasteur (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I didn't know that that would allow them to use it freely, as the notes at the bottom of the edit field say By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. I don't want to misinform them. They are saying they wish to close their account, which is a shame. Doug Weller talk 11:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The problem is lots of journals have a "Anything you submit to us must not be public domain accessable" rule (because they want "exclusive content" Hasteur (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Thanks. But how does me deleting the page save his copyright? Doug Weller talk 12:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If the page is deleted, when the journal goes out to search, they may not be able to find it. Hasteur (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have never actually encountered a journal that didn't like prior public versions. But maybe standards are different in different areas. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: In mathematics one can submit to a journal something that's been on the arXiv, but in biology they have "embargoes". Michael Hardy (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Most of my pubs are in CS journals rather than math ones, but there also embargoes are unknown. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Cut-the-Knot nominated for deletion

Comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cut-the-Knot. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Archimedes-lab.org nominated for deletion

Comment here, if you so desire: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes-lab.org. XOR'easter (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Prime Number Distribution Series

Can someone else please look at this new article? I am wondering whether it is original research in the Wikipedia sense. It has two references, but they both appear to be the author's own, so that I don't see any peer-reviewed work. The author also seems to be making "interesting" claims to have discovered something about prime numbers that hasn't been learned by anyone else in 2300 years of increasingly complex rigorous mathematical study. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, OR. The author asks "Please do not disrupt the ongoing work!" on the talk page there. Well, he could continue the work on his userspace. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Clearly a deletion candidate IMO. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

To be complete, the comment not to disrupt the ongoing work had been included when the author was still building the article in mainspace, and I then moved it into draft space to give him room to finish it, but he did more work and then moved it back into mainspace. AFD is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This author is unknown to both MathSciNet and Zbl. This page is clearly OR and should be deleted. Sapphorain (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which this project has been involved. The thread is "Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata". Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the complaint against Takuya Murata. Can someone explain why the existence of these drafts is a problem? If it is a problem, could it be solved by moving them to the user namespace? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Michael Hardy: Read the above section "Stale Abstratic mathematic Draft pages, again" and the linked discussion from last year where Takuya has explicitly rejected moving it to their userspace. Hasteur (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Just to put my side of the story on the record: I objected to the moves since that would defeat the purpose of the draftspace. How is it the case it would be ok if I were to work on them in my userspace but not in the draftspace? The logic is simply broken here. I can be persuaded only if some legitimate reason is given (not just harassment.) -- Taku (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

User Drrob2017

I would like to bring attention to a new user Drrob2017 User talk:Drrob2017 with a single purpose account who has been updating many mathematical pages with references to a certain piece of work, possibly his. Limit-theorem (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Clearly the reference might be legit in places; but what made me suspicious is finding it on unrelated probability theory pages, presented as if it were a standard reference.Limit-theorem (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Faithfully flat descent‎

Hi all,

There is a disagreement as to whether the development of the math-related articles in the main namespace benefits from redirecting this draft (at Draft talk:Faithfully flat descent‎) to the mainspace. I find the logic absurd but, since math is absurdity anyway, we can use some additional inputs to break the tie. Thanks! -- Taku (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Or Taku could try to canvas support for what they precieve as supportave editors... You know... Try to dillute any consensus. WP:Mathematics has already told Taku that these are problematic and probably belong in their Userspace. Hasteur (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Misrepresenting the other people's views get us to nowhere "these are problematic and probably belong in their Userspace". There is no such a consensus. You need to get out of the fantasy land; I'm still waiting in the real (and virtual!) world where we are trying to build the encyclopedia. -- Taku (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Hasteur acts according to the guidelines of WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, while Taku disagrees with these guidelines. If so, then the question is really not "Faithfully flat descent" but "Abandoned drafts"; do we agree with its guidelines, or not? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The scope of that project is "Any drafts that are created by users who are deemed inactive". Taku is obviously not inactive. Therefore, it should be clear that his drafts are out of scope for their guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I suggest you re-read the purpose of WP Abandoned trafts. Several Wikipedians have formed this collaboration resource and group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's use of article drafts left in retired users' subpages and in Draft space. (empasis mine) Please take a look at the goals section and see that Taku's creations fall square in the middle of Abandoned drafts. Hasteur (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Since when is Taku a retired user? Or are you interpreting anything left in draft space, even by non-retired users, as somehow abandoned, despite the clear statement which I quoted from your project's page that it is about inactive users only? Next, you will be determining that stubs in article space created by retired users are also abandoned drafts? And then, all stubs? Where does it stop? Your project has a clear mission statement. You have clearly overstepped it. Now, instead of actually cleaning up bad drafts, you seem to have set your goal to be harassing active users into retirement in order to justify the claim that their drafts are abandoned. How does that help build an encyclopedia? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

We're cleaning up bad drafts by trying to focus the effort into mainspace. Taku's creations have languished for over 2 years without Taku doing anything about it. Taku was nagged about them over a year ago. Some of the creations are barely 2 sentences, some are a "See Also" section and 2 references. How else are we supposed to convince Taku to fix their problem. I've tried offering them Userspace which has been rejected, we've tried bargining with "Trial by Mainspace" to see if Taku is willing to put their money where their mouth is (and was flatly rejected), we've tried submitting them to AfC to have a review go over them (and those were reverted), so now we're trying Redirect discussions (because bold redirection is being reverted as "Vandalism") and MFDs to compel Taku to either fix the pages or let them go. Taku is only the frequent target because they created 200ish drafts 2 years ago and hasn't come back after several reminders and requests to fix them. In short Taku's been abusing WP:NOTWEBHOST, refuses to fix the problem, and has generally been disruptive in forming a consensus. Hasteur (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Before asking "How else are we supposed to convince Taku to fix their problem", maybe you should ask "is there actually a problem", and "are we supposed to ask Taku to fix it". I have seen you cross-posting to many different message boards trying to build support for your position that Taku should somehow be censured for creating these drafts. I have not seen you actually justify the position that the existence of these drafts is causing any harm to anybody. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"Do not take drafts from active users. If the draft has been stale for an exceptional amount of time, however, feel free to leave a note on their talk page asking if they plan on finishing the draft." (From these guidelines.) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tsirel: See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2016/Mar#Abstract_Geometry_creations_languishing_in_Draft_namespace and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2017/Jul#Stale_Abstract_mathematic_Draft_pages.2C_again where the issue was raised at this talk page and Taku participated. Raising the issue in a non-combative forum (as opposed to Deletion Proceedings, or forced redirection) has been tried and gets nitpicked off into oblivion to the point that Taku argues there is no consensus to do anything. We kick the can down the road 6 months and come back to the same conversation where people request Taku to fix the pages, Taku tries for every loophole and exception, it gets ignored and we repeat again in 6 months. I'd love for Taku to actually do something about the pages, but with over 200 times as many bytes spent debate-defending these and not a single byte spent on actually resolving the issue, you can see how a certain section of the community's patience is wearing thin. Hasteur (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

And isn't it time for you to get the point; there is no solid support for the view that the old drafts are problematic (just because they are old) and that they need to be fixed. -- Taku (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I am supportive of the overall effort to streamline the draft namespace for the purposes of AfC and active development drafts. I do not think it is consistent with the purpose of this namespace to be an indefinite host for sandboxes. Drafts with no encyclopedic content that have been abandoned for years should be deleted, and userfied upon request. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that non-encyclopedic content has no place in Wikipedia; the question here is an old encyclopedic content; does it need to be gone just because it's old? Should we start deleting old stubs in the mainspace? -- Taku (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Stubs without context or content in mainspace are deleted quite routinely under WP:CSD. They do not have to be old for these criteria to apply. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure. And I have changed my position to delete/expand some of my shortndraft pages without context or content. The draftpage in question certainly has some meat. -- Taku (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, ok. I agree with this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There is an open merge proposal at Talk:Chow coordinates. Please feel free to provide constructive commentary that does further the purpose of wikipedia's first pillar "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Commentary that makes "What about X" arguments, "I wrote this so I get to decide it's fate" arguments, and arguments as to what the purpose of various namespaces is unwelcome and will be treated as disruptive editing. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Again again the "old" is not a good reason for the merger. -- Taku (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

K-theory of a category

I tried to fix the most mechanical issues, like dead links in the references, but this page needs a lot of work. It has no lede, and the first section stops in mid-sentence. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I added a lede. It will take a more knowledgable editor to fill in the subsequent sections. --Mark viking (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I have moved it back to the draftspace since I don't think it's ready for the mainspace. -- Taku (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Taku, that's out of order and I'm filing at Requested Moves to have it be put back as an undiscussed out of process move that has caused more harm than it fixes. Hasteur (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

But is it more polite to consult the main writer of the draft for the move to the mainspace in the first place? Remember the goal is not the cleanup but building an encyclopedia. Keep the priority straight. -- Taku (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Your ownership is so far beyond pale that you just need to sit down. The page already had at least a 50% chance of surviving in mainspace. That you want to pull it back into draft namespace gain demonstrates that you don't want to build mainspace, you want to protect your creations. @XOR'easter and Mark viking: would you mind talking Taku down from this ledge as this ownership is 100% unacceptable. Hasteur (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You provided the basic content, a lede has been added, sentence fragments have been fixed, and XOR'easter has done a good job of fixing up references. More development is possible, but I think the article is a reasonable stub at this point. --Mark viking (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

On a second thought, Mark is correct. It looks ok to be in the mainspace. My apology for the knee jerk reaction. -- Taku (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks, Taku. --Mark viking (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably helped when an admin forcably prevented page moves and endorsed the page's viability for mainspace (RHaworth moved page Draft:K-theory of a category to K-theory of a category without leaving a redirect: Hasteur and I both think it is ready for mainspace) Hasteur (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You're point being? -- Taku (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Can you have some faith in the people? -- Taku (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. When you've stomped over multiple extensions of AGF it's hard to have "faith" in your actions. Hasteur (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It is rumored that Wikipedia is driven by males, while Wikihow by females. And indeed, Wikihow is less scandalous.   :-)   Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I have been referred as "they" so apparently I'm gender-less :) Anyway to be on the record, there are some drafts started by me that are actually ready to be moved to the mainspace. Among those is this one. I made a mistake of undoing the move, which I regret. All I'm asking or in fact am being puzzled is this urgency to get things done "right this moment". Will the climate of Wikipedia reach such an unsustainable level if I didn't complete 10 or 20 drafts? All I need is evidence for this exigency to complete drafts in the timely fashion. I now understand some drafts without context can be problematic so I'm agreeing to do something about these for the reviewers (it makes sense). But then how is then some other draft with a clearer purpos a problem? -- Taku (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice... Now if the second person will be equally compliant (not necessary gender-less), we'll see happy end. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ironically, one is "retired, but still...", the other "drastically reducing involvement..." Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Taku, it's considered bad wiki form to assign a gender pronoun to an editor who hasn't indicated what pronoun they prefer. That's why "They" is (as I understand it) the preferred identifier. Your 10 to 20 drafts may not be the problem but they're the camel's nose in the tent. If you want 10 to 20 drafts, what prevents annother editor asking for their 10 to 20 drafts because you got yours. The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. Hasteur (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about the last part. Do you mean to say the abandoned drafts (in fact not even abandoned....) now need to be deleted? There is no such consensus. And whenever I asked for the consensus you go silent. Can we have evidence-based discussion? You admit my drafts are not problems. Can you now agree that there is no community consensus that abandoned drafts need to be deleted? By the way, this is unrelated to the G13 RfC since the expansion, which I support, is about streamlining the deletion process not about changing the inclusion criteria for the draftspace. -- Taku (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Only because every time I point at consensus (which admins have endorsed) you say it's not consensus. I have better chances trying to convince a rock. Hasteur (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Because the "consensus" exists only in your fantasy land, like a faster-than-light particle exists only in a theory (I'm pretty sure about this). You need to provide actual evidence of consensus in the form of RfC. -- Taku (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Cyclic cover

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Additional input is needed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cyclic cover. -- Taku (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Geometry of algebraic curves and multiplicity theory

I have proposed that these two draft pages be moved back to the draftspace. Participations are welcome at Talk:Geometry of an algebraic curve and Talk:multiplicity theory. -- Taku (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, Multiplicity theory is acceptable for main space, while Geometry of an algebraic curve should be moved back to draft space. I did a little copy-editing and reference work on Multiplicity theory, and now it reads to me like any other mathematics stub (i.e., impenetrable to outsiders, perhaps somewhat useful for specialists). As for Geometry of an algebraic curve, that article lacks a lede, has turns of phrase like a textbook, repeatedly meanders into the void, makes unsupported value judgments ("difficult theorem", "imperative"), lacks inline citations, has no overall sense of pedagogical progression or organization, and needs recategorization. It should not be presented to the world as an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. The deficcencies in Geometry of an algebraic curve can be corrected via normal editing. It may take a while, but there is no reason why it should be clawed back to draft space where beneficial tools such as Categorization and maintenance tags can help it are required to be disabled. Hasteur (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft proposal

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Suggestion_for_a_compromise for a proposal I've made concerning math-related drafts. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record, this (storing drafts in the project subpage) seems to work; as long as there is no objection among the project members. -- Taku (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

What are the benefits for WP?

With some sadness I notice how two (for the time being) eager janitors (Hasteur, Legacypac) insist on tidying up a list about WP in one and only one sequence of its items, exactly according to their vision of virtual damage done to the holy project, thereby annoying TakuyaMurata, provoking continuous adversaries.

As I see this, there are no strong involvements beside these three, perhaps even a bit of denying the damage, which is claimed by the two, if they would not succeed, and a bit of difference in valuating the drafts/stubs under conflict.

In my valuation, far too many potential contributors, capable of delivering substantial contributions to WP, have been driven away by such unchallenged bureaucracy, meanwhile.

Is there no way to calm down this fruitless clearing a list? Shouldn't the community, the consensus of which is challengedly claimed, voice itself in some stronger perceivable manner? Purgy (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"One thing that's obvious to me is that neither side is 100% wrong, and neither side is 100% right. And, equally, nether side is ever going to convince the other to change their opinion." (RoySmith 22:57, 25 August 2017, quoted from here). I feel alike. If I were a dictator, I would ban both sides for a week. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not like that. All you need to do is look at Taku's talkpage back to June 2016 esp to see his strange obsession with keeping his notes in Draft - amd no one dare touch them. Look up one thread to see him trying to move pages from mainspace back to his sacred Draft space. He keeps trying to change the rules, claims to not understand plain english, to ban people who touch his draft and overtrn community decisions in various ways. What gives? It's a war for him. Legacypac (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Tsirel and Purgy. From the point of view of Wikipedia, the true questions are

• Are the subjects of these drafts worth for an article? In most case, and possibly in all case, the answer is yes
• Are the subjects covered in the main space. In most case, and possibly in all case, the answer is no
• Are the drafts ready for the main space? The answer is clearly no
• Is the deletion of these drafts the right way for covering these subjects? Certainly not

This illustrates the classical problem of the math. project: there are many subjects that should be covered and are not, and we lack of competent editors for covering them. The competent editors that we have have not enough time for covering these subjects. Spending time of competent editors for such administrative discussions is the wrong way for solving these problems. Harassing one of the few competent mathematical editors, as it is done, is certainly not a good way for improving the mathematical content of Wikipedia, and may only result in decreasing the number of competent mathematical editors. Thus Hasteur and Legacypac behavior is disruptive as spending time of competent mathematical editors without any benefit for WP. D.Lazard (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@D.Lazard:HINT: they are not interested in [possible libel removed by Purgy (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)] the encyclopedia but a [possible libel removed by Purgy (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)] old pages. -- Taku (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the categorization of being dictatorial and intentionally trying to stop. Taku has had multiple opportunities (May of 2016, June of this year through current) to put their volunteer efforts into actually fixing the pages. Instead Taku spends time obstructing any request that starts fixing the issues with their pages. As has been said multiple times, all it takes is 1 edit to get the page off the "not edited in over 6 months" and I go away until it becomes not-edited in 6 months again. At it currently stands there's pages that haven't had a single edit in 2 years and I'm trying to be impartial so I'm working from "page with the oldest last edit to newest" i.e. Pages that were edited over 2 years ago and working forward. If taku made one single edit I'd probably go away for a year simply because there's a great many other pages to clean up. I would also note that Taku is the only editor who has objected to their pages being evaluated and resolved. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I'm a bit confused here. Are seriously suggesting that some editor is required to do (pseudo) edit every 6 months on draft articles in his user space, so that he doesn't get bothered by you or some user space clean up crew? And you think that TakuyaMurata is the only one objected to this?--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: You are confused and misunderstood. CSD:G13 allows for all pages in Draft namespace and pages that are tagged with the {{AFC submission}} template to be nominated for speedy deletion if they have not been edited for at least 6 months. Taku's pages were discovered through User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report which lists all pages in draft namespace that do not have a AFC template on them that are at least 6 months unedited. I am working that report from the oldest edit moving forward to newest edit. Every other editor who has had pages on that list has given the go ahead to delete them or has not made any objection. TakuyaMurata on the other hand has spent nearly one thousand bytes defending their right to keep these while not making one single byte of improvement to the pages. One pseudeo edit every 6 months resets the clock on the pages, however if it's discovered that the clock is being disruptively being reset every 5 months then we can look at addressing those pages through more involved mechanisms such as "Merge and Redirect", Redirect without merge, MFD, or numerous other mechanisms. Taku has a couple options: Take the pages back to their userspace, Work on the page and let other editors work on it as well, Move the page to mainspace and improve it, Delete the page. Hasteur (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

We are discussing Draft space. Taku refuses to use his userspace for them. At 6 months unedited the pages are subject to G13 deletion. That is true for all of Draftspace now. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

So here we are once more at the opening question. The self-decreed sanitation engineers insist to refuse any balancing of benefits for WP, because of a "fiat iusticia, pereat mundus". Instead of questioning their relentless perseverance in enforcing their mostly self-imposed targets, or, at least, referring to their commenting on the suggestion by RoySmith below, they enforce and enforce again their brine of bureaucracy, used as a repellent for valuable WP-editors and as a lure for the unproductive enforcers of rules, not even pondering the negligibility of efforts to maintain stale drafts (obviously, they are not "stale", just unedited), thereby upholding questionable rules to a degree, representing blasphemy against all reasonableness: dummy-edits every 6 month, advisably with artificial random spread. OMG!—Topic ban for sanitizing WP for these engineers! Purgy (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTWEBHOST is policy. The purpose of that policy is to encourage everyone to regard Wikipedia as an encyclopedia where everything is done for the ultimate benefit of the encyclopedia. There would be no problem, for example, if all the drafts in question were put in a single page with a level-two heading replacing each draft title. This project would then have an easily accessible list of topics that could be quickly browsed and improved with the aim of developing encyclopedic articles. However, keeping one-line drafts because they concern mathematics is not reasonable because there is no practical way they can be stored indefinitely without encouraging others to indefinitely store less scholarly material (non-notable WP:PORN actors, for example). Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

So, I see another creative idea here: to keep the drafts on the project space, but combined into a single page. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I know that with current PC-guidelines I have to apologize for perceiving the mentioning of WP:PORN in immediate context with MATHEMATICS as a serious affront, even when mediated as less scholarly, but I insist on perceiving this way. I would not raise a single objection against hounding stale porn drafts, but I strongly object to stalk drafts with agreed upon scientific potential, obviously being under attention, just because of appearing at a particular place in some list for inappropriate measurements, taken by professionally incompetent cleaning personel. Furthermore, I cannot see any webhosting in storing the drafts, defended by Taku. I claim that the most page views of these drafts are caused by these janitors and their employed bots, so no essential web hosting takes place. There is no problem in the status quo, if it were not for these narrowly focused bureaucrats. Purgy (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia works well due to its community. However, that community shifts over time. If NOTWEBHOST is eroded so one-line drafts on a "good" topic are stored indefinitely, other projects would naturally want similar storage facilities. The damage (apart from the inability to ever find anything useful in the ocean of fragmentary ideas) would be that the community would become more dominated by those who regard Wikipedia as just another website where the rules of the 'net apply—those who complain the loudest are able to drive away the meek, and they can store anything they like. My concern is to maintain the integrity of NOTWEBHOST by insisting that everything has a plausible purpose for building articles. I would be happy to integrate all the drafts in question into a single page, and people could evaluate the result. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Not worth to integrate the drafts before the community decision to go this way. And nothing to evaluate; everyone can easily imagine the result. I, for one, am ready to take a half of the routine work of such "integration". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I take affront to being called "professionally incompetent" and the suggestion that there is "agreed upon scientific potential" for contentless pages on very obscure topics. I could create dozens of blank pages on real estate and business topics and then defend them as notable forever, but that would be disruptive and pointless Legacypac (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The affront is caused by Purgy, not by the WikiprojectMath. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it was caused by Johnuniq's unnecessarily incendiary comparison to porn, actually. —David Eppstein (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac, I am sorry for not having been sufficiently verbose about the intended meaning of "professional incompetence", but I hope, that confessing my personal "professional incompetence" on many matters of "real estate and business topics" makes it bearable for you to be coined as "professionally incompetent" in math, especially since you insist on judging certain drafts on math as being on "very obscure topics". For a more professional judgment of the drafts, please, consult the professional contributions in the widespread draft-hunt, not only about the drafts themselves, but also about the questioned editor. I would request your "dozens of blank pages" to be judged by professionals in the field of "real estate and business topics", and not by volunteering janitors. One has to live with one's incompetences, taking affront for these being noted generates a wrong self-esteem and is pointless. Purgy (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously I did not compare math drafts with porn. It's just that I spend too much time hanging around noticeboards and am well aware of how advocacy groups sometimes operate (in case there is any doubt, WikiProject Mathematics is not an advocacy group). What editors here regard as obviously worth keeping would apply for different pages to editors in every other wikiproject. The community cannot decide to indefinitely keep math drafts but delete pages from other projects. Johnuniq (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

(I'm not offended by porn; porn producers can be as professional as math professors, if not esteemed.) I don't think NOTWEBHOST is applicable here. If that is the issue, the location of the draft pages doesn't matter nor if they are in a single page. -- Taku (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

A single page like User:TakuyaMurata/DraftsUser:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage is likely to get worked on occasionally and therefore will not fall stale. Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There are many stale pages in the mainspace. Similarly, "stale" itself isn't an issue; it just happens that there are many stale problematic drafts. Many blacks are criminals; doesn't mean all black are criminals. -- Taku (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

That Purgy cannot see the difference between Mathematics, Real estate, porn performers, Pokemon, or anything similar suggests a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problem... It's not Mathematics pages that I and others are trying to address, It's not Taku's pages that I and others are trying to address, it is pages that have lain dormant for two years that have been brought to an appropriate wikiproject twice (May 2016, June 2017) in which there seemed to be a reasonable argument for Taku to take action on these pages either by returning them back to Taku's userspace or by performing a single edit. That these requests for feedback get bogged down in needless nitpicking ("This topic isn't exactly what a mainspace page describes and it's not entirely the page") and plays for more time (see Taku's multiple requests for delay, filing pointy RFCs, filing pointy RMs, filing pointy DRVs, etc). My AGF is 100% spent on Taku's pages, but I still attempt to do the right thing with respect to any page that is in Draft namespace that has not been edited for at least 6 months. I come to the page, consider if it has a reasonable chance in mainspace, promote it if it is. If not, I see if there is a mainspace page (or subsection of a page) that could be a good target for a redirect. If the page's author decides they want to merge content from the redirected page (because I did not file for deletion) they can go back to the history and merge over the useful content. If there doesn't seem to be any mainspace content, I file for G13 because it meets the criteria. Deletion is the last resort. Hasteur (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Zero-stripping MR identifiers

I've noticed that quite a few MR identifiers have leading zeros. For example, in 128 (number), we have

• Sprague, R. (1948), "Über Zerlegungen in ungleiche Quadratzahlen", Math. Z., 51 (3): 289–290, doi:10.1007/BF01181863, MR 0027285

I don't see the point in those leading 0s, especially since if you follow MR0027285, you get taken to the same place as MR27285, and when you land on that page, you are shown 'MR27285' not 'MR0027285'. So it seems that per principle of least astonishment, we should not be including those leading zeros. There are a few solutions to this

• a) Unleash a bot to strip leading zeros [would affect roughly 4000 pages].
• b) Have {{citation}}/{{MR}} templates silently strip the leading 0s. ({{MR|0027285}} to render as {{MR|27285}})
• c) Do both a b.
• d) Have {{citation}}/{{MR}} 0-pad MR identifiers so they display the leading zeros when they have been stripped. ({{MR|27285}} to render as {{MR|0027285}})

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Both links go to the same place, but the title shown on MathSciNet is "MR0027285 (10,283d)" with the zeros, so it appears that MathSciNet believes that the version with the zeros is the canonical version, rather than the version without. Note: I am not looking at the MR "Relay Station" shown to users without a subscription, I am looking at actual MathSciNet as most people who use MathSciNet would, to see the review. Similarly, when I search MathSciNet for "Turing, A*" by author, the results list includes links with zeros, such as MR0055785 As long as the actual MathSciNet adds the zeros when they are omitted, and shows them by default, I don't think we should make a lot of edits here to remove them from our links. I think you have just found a quirk in the "Relay Station" script. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where you see those zeros. This is what I see [1]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is the "Relay Station" as it says at the top. That is the "free" version that only shows the bibliographical info. Try using regular MathSciNet as you do to read the reviews. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have access to MathSciNet. The question remains though. Should we strip 0s, or should we pad with 0s? The landing page for most people will have the stripped version. No idea what the landing page is if you have a subscription. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If you don't have access to MathSciNet, I think it would be a better idea to leave maintenance of MathSciNet links to those who do and who use it routinely. Here is a screenshot [2]. As to the question, I do not think any action is of enough importance to be worth making any edits to the wiki. I would trust the editors who enter MR links to know what they are doing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

We can have this discussion without your condescending remarks about the lowly peasants without MathSciNet access. Again, I ask the question, should the zeros be stripped from MR identifiers, or should MR identifiers be padded with 0s. This can be done by simply updating the templates themselves. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Carl, the zeros do appear in the actual MathSciNet listings, but you can look up a review by MR number with or without the leading zeros. If MathSciNet is being cavalier about these leading zeros, I don't see why we should do anything about it.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The MR access number for their database is defined as a 7 digit number; see for instance, the Sept 22, 2003 entry in [3]. However, MatSciNet allows for shorter numbers and those are left zero-padded as necessary. It's probably more correct to use the canonical 7-digit format, but in practice most search engines can likely handle the short format. --Mark viking (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The zeros should not be stripped. The MR number is a seven digit number, including the leading zeros. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

So let's pad to 7 digits and present the canonical identifier then? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If they must be normalized, I think that would be a better choice than zero-stripping. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't see any strong reason why they must be normalized. Leaving thing as-is seems like a reasonable choice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Biquaternion

Could do with a third opinion at Talk:Biquaternion, whether a source/sources Theor-phys wants to add are appropriate or not.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone with a track record of a couple of DOIs publish his/her own (?) PhD thesis (along with a video) on WP? This is possible (but not definite) self-promotion. The only account activity is this. YohanN7 (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

ISO 4 redirects help!

{{Infobox journal}} now features ISO 4 redirect detection to help with the creation and maintenance of these redirects, and will populate Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects. ISO 4 redirects help readers find journal articles based on their official ISO abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys. A → Journal of Physics A), and also help with compilations like WP:JCW and WP:JCW/TAR. The category is populated by the |abbreviation= parameter of {{Infobox journal}}. If you're interested in creating missing ISO 4 redirects:

• Load up an article from the category (or only check for e.g. Mathematics journals).
• One or more maintenance templates should be at the top of page, with links to create the relevant redirects and verify the abbreviations.
• VERIFY THAT THE ABBREVIATION IN |abbreviation= IS CORRECT FIRST

• There are links in the maintenance templates to facilitate this. See full detailed instructions at Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects.
• |abbreviation= should contain dotted, title cased versions of the abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys., not J Phys or J. phys.). Also verify that the dots are appropriate.
• If you cannot determine the correct abbreviation, or aren't sure, leave a message at WT:JOURNALS and someone will help you.

• Use the link in the maintenance template to create the redirects and automatically tag them with {{R from ISO 4}}.
• WP:NULL/WP:PURGE the original article to remove the maintenance templates.

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Marshall–Olkin exponential distribution

Marshall–Olkin exponential distribution could certainly use work. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Unassessed fields in Talk:Valentine_Joseph

Hello, please could someone assess the missing fields for this article. Best regards - Heptanitrocubane (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)