Talk:Main Page

Links to Mathematicians
I've just done a job of de-cluttering the Wanted Page list by removing internal links to mathematicians, philosophers and their works and replacing them with Wikipedia links.

However, it occurs to me that we might want to include links to our specific pages on mathematicians, and if possible get the links to go directly to our modest little piece on the mathematician in question.

How easy would that be? At the moment it's easy enough to add a link to the "mathematicians" page, but it would be nice to go one step further. --Matt Westwood 14:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Using the table method on the mathematicians page isn't working too well since we can't link directly to the person. Maybe we should have it so that each mathematician is under their own section.

eg.

Related Proofs/Theorems
My only concern with this is that the page may become too large. Although saying that what we could do would be to have subpages for each mathematician, where we can have a full bio or whatever, and just have small sections set to trasnclude so that on the main page we can include, and this will just have a small amount of information. Such as:


 * years active
 * small bio maybe
 * proofs/theorems

If anyone thinks this is an okay idea let me know and I'll begin to implement this. --Joe (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Worth trying out, at least. --Matt Westwood 18:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have it started but it still needs to get some kinks worked out. --Joe (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to go for dinner, feel free to pick at it a bit if you want. --Joe (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If your dinner's as good as the mixed grill I just put together and scarfed down (sausage, burgers, lamb chops, tomatoes, mushrooms, fried eggs, baked beans and chips) then you won't want to move for several hours. I'll give this some proper looking-at in the morning, work out how to drive it then. --Matt Westwood 20:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Referencing fields of mathematics
I noticed recently that a category can have a text page attached, so I have been moving the references to fields of mathematics (e.g. Geometry, Topology etc.) from the Definitions namespace to the Categories one. This makes it easier to (for example) distinguish links to the genre of Topology from those to the definition of the mathematical object that is a Topology.

I went through the definitions yesterday and moved a whole load of them (leaving redirects where appropriate).

What does anyone else think: is this a good approach? Define genres in the category pages and not the definitions pages? --Matt Westwood 10:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Definitely leave the redirects, though. --Cynic (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cynic. --Joe (talk)

Open Hypotheses
We need a category to put (among others) the Riemann Hypothesis, which now has 5 links to it (including this one).

Obviously we can't prove it as such but we ought to be able to reference it.

So how about a category to put this in, along with P vs NP, Navier-Stokes, the Hodge Conjecture and all the others?

As a subcategory of Category:Proofs, or do we want a completely new category? And what do we call it: "Open Questions" or what? --Matt Westwood 09:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question, I'd would like to say put it inside Category:Proofs if for no other reason then organization. --Joe (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, a completely separate one seems good as well. --Joe (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a new category in the main namespace would be in order. Maybe Category:Unsolved Problems or Category:Open Questions --Cynic (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest "Open Questions". Of course, there is also the notion of "Conjectures", which we may or may not want to distinguish. -- lasserempe 19:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference? We could set up two separate subcategories of "unproved statements" or something. --Matt Westwood 21:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, P NP is more of an open question since there is not one widely accepted side to the arguement (to the best of my knowledge), whereas the Riemann Hypothesis is more of a conjecture since one side of the question (namely, that the nontrivial solutions have real part 1/2) is generally believed to be true. With that in mind, it might make sense to have conjectures as a subcategory of open questions, but I don't really care that much. --Cynic (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Stubs, stubs and stubs
There are three basic reasons for a stub article:
 * 1) When the writer just wants to add a stake in the ground so as to identify the thrust of an as-yet unwritten page (in which the name of the page itself may not be descriptive enough or too ambiguous without some basic info) but hasn't got time or inclination to complete it;
 * 2) When a writer is half way through a long-winded proof or definition, but domestic or commercial priorities demand that work be suspended while another task is attended to;
 * 3) When a writer genuinely (through lack of inspiration, expertise or application) can not reach the end of a particular train of thought and has to abandon it.

So I see the need for different kinds of stub:
 * 1) The basic stub, which covers the first of the above. This should be fair game for anyone to dive in and complete.
 * 2) A "work in progress" stub, which means "Please don't touch this yet, I know it's not finished, I'm working on it." Other Proofwiki users would take this as a polite request not to modify the page until the original creator has finished with it.
 * 3) A "help, please!" stub which specifically invites any contributors to see whether they can finish it off.

Clearly there may be a cause for 2. above to be monitored. If a user has too many of these open at any one time then they could be gently nudged either to finish off what they've started or else to throw it open.

Any takers? Any more categories of stub? --Matt Westwood 00:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A "help" template would definitely be in order. I think the general stub tag should stay as the first of your classifications. As for the "work in progress", that might be something for people to do individually. That is to say, each user could have their own template for things they will come back to. Of course, as I think about this, that might be unfriendly to people without the experience to create their own templates (I usually just modify one that is close to what I want since I don't pretend to understand a lot of the syntax). That said, could be enough to identify what people are planning on coming back to (without, of course, having the benefit of keeping track of how many open proofs users have at any given point). --Cynic (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You can see what I was thinking of for the user specific "I'll get back to it" templates in my sandbox, and you can see the code (which would only need slight modifications for other users) here. --Cynic (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I like your idea. Something similar to that could/should definitely be implemented in the main stub template. --Joe (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thx Cynic - I've added a couple of my own personal "in progress" pages based on your own versions. --Matt Westwood 10:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll these and add them to the stub template so that users who don't want to have their own stub pages can use them. --Joe (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)