Wikipedia talk:Pages needing attention/Mathematics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Comments about this page

We should not be creating a separate structure for article comments in this WikiProject. The talk pages of those articles are intended to take comments about what is wrong with those articles. Duplicating that function here is needless and leads to those in and not in the WikiProject having separate focuses for no reason. It also clouds up the list here. — 131.230.133.185 5 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)

Yup. I agree. But there's a lot of folks that seem to like doing stuff like this. --Chan-Ho 20:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I like to do things like this. :) There are 10963 mathematics and mathematician biography articles at this moment. Who is going to visit the talk pages of all articles and see what is wrong with each one of them? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant to the point raised by the anon. The anon is not saying it's bad to bring some articles to a group's notice. S/he appears to be saying that duplication of the "talk page" is "needless". This leads to a communication problem where people are at cross purposes. I think that's a good point: many of these comments should be posted to the talk page of the relevant articles. Sometimes it's done. Many times it is not. If it's a good comment or suggestion, why should not editors editing the relevant article see it on the talk page? The last point made by the anon is that it "clouds up the list here". I don't really see it being that messy. But I think the basic idea behind his/her comments is valid. Discussion should be encouraged to take place on the relevant talk page. --Chan-Ho 04:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarification is perhaps needed on my "lots of folks" comment above. I think one reason people like to put there comments here instead of on talk pages is the closer sense of community that is generated. That's all and good, but we should all remember that we are part of a broader Wikipedia community, which includes even anons and random people that occasionally edit Wikipedia. Having discussions in a less accessible part of Wikipedia means that things are less open to those not in this subcommunity. --Chan-Ho 04:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Listing the pages needing attention

Currently, there are two ways to flag a math article as needing improvement. One, is to list it on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics, this page. Second, is by putting various templates in the article or its talk page {{attention}}, {{cleanup}}, {{context}}, {{technical}}, {{wikify}} (any others?)

I wrote a tool to read in all the articles which have one of the above templates either in the article itself or on its talk page, and which extracts the mathematics and mathematician articles from there. Many (most) of those are not listed on this page.

The big question is, should the math articles having those templates be listed here? If yes, how? My suggestion would be to add a new section to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics which will be writable by a bot. The bot is not too smart, so editors may need to move entries from there up in the "Mathematics", "Statistics", "Mathematicians" sections above, add meaningful comments if necessary, and use their judgments as to when those articles should be removed from this page.

I estimate that in addition to around 30 articles now listed here, there are around 100 more having those templates. So, my question, is it all worth it, and will people not be flooded by a bunch of new articles in need of work? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I would just do the bot section like you suggest. We should also have subheadings corresponding to the various templates. -- Fropuff 06:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think using subheaders would complicate matters, as this page is sourced into a bigger page, see Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematical and Natural Sciences. I would think of just adding a note next to each article listed saying where it was discovered. Would look a bit nicer on the page I would think. How about that? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Still, knowing what kind of attention is required would be useful. I like the subheadings idea, but maybe a different organization would be better. I don't care much about the parent page as I only ever look at this one. -- Fropuff 17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I will give it a try. Maybe today. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment about divisibility argument

216.167.143.131 03:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Danny (ooiyq2@yahoo.com) Dear Wikipedia and friends:

Thank you, so very much, for your incredibly helpful on-line resource. I do have a question, however, about one of the quite-useful articles.

Specifically, I am curious about something in the Divisibility Rule article (at the follwing URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisibility_rule). In the section entitle "2 through 20"... a chart lists various divisibility rules (for these 19 whole-numbers-- from 2 through 20)... I have been able to understand (and utilize) every rule... EXCEPT FOR ONE-- that one being: the second rule listed for the number 17.

The description of the Divisibility Condition... does NOT seem to match the given Example. The said Divisibility Condition is described (with ambiguous wording) as follows: "Alternatively subtract and add blocks of two digits from the end, doubling the last block and halving the result of the operation, rounding any decimal end result as necessary."

The Example (for 209,865-- which commas divide into the said blocks of 2 digits, each... as "20,98,65"), however, does not double the last block (i.e., of 65); but rather, that said Example doubles both the middle block (of 98... which becomes "(98x2)")... as well as the first block (i.e., of 20... which becomes "40"). Finally, this Example does NOT remove the resulting decimal... by "rounding" (but rather, through multipliction by 10).

The said example (which appears as: "20,98,65: (65 - (98x2)) : 2 + 40 = - 25.5 = 255 = 15x17")... CAN work, however, when expressed as follows: "209,865: ( [65 - (98•2) ] / 2) + (2•20) = [ (65 - 196) / 2] + 40 = (-131 / 2) + 40 = -65.5 + 40 = -25.5"... and "-25.5•10 = -255 = -15•17".

Despite my best efforts, though, NONE of my attempts to apply this divisibility rule to larger multiples of 17 (ones with more digits than the given Example) have ever been successful. Please, either help me to understand this Divisibility Rule... or forward this e-mail to the contributor (of the said Divisibility Rule)... so that I will learn how to apply this Divisibility Condition to the following, large multiple of 17: 9,349,990,820,016,829,983 (a whole-number which, by the way, happens to be the product of the following prime factors: 3 • 3 • 3 • 3 • 7 • 11 • 13 • 13 • 13 • 17 • 37 • 43 • 557 • 45,293).

Thanking you, in advance, for your prompt attention,

Danny

ooiyq2@yahoo.com