Revision as of 17:53, 24 July 2012

Computer science Unassessed High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Mathematics Unassessed Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Mizar system external links pro and con

This section aggragates the arguments pro and con of placing Mizar system external links on mathematical articles. To make the discussion concrete I am posting here the link I placed on the sigma-field article external links section.

Formal definition of sigma-field in the Mizar system, and the list of theorems formally proved about it.

Yaniv256 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL

Pro: WP:EL states that "some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy". The formal definition of sigma-field and the collection of proofs that have been formalized on it is on-topic on the sigma-field page. It cannot be added to the article because the amount of detail and form of presentation would overwhelm the typical reader. However, it is of interest to current mathematics and computer science students in the advanced undergraduate and graduate level, as it allows them to sort out exactly what a sigma field is and how its properties are proved in absolute rigor.

WP:ELNO.1

Pro: WP:ELNO.1 states that linking to "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" should be avoided. Clearly, a sigma-field featured article would not contain the body of all formalized proofs on sigma-fields. It may contain the formalized definition, one day in the future, if and when the formal language in which it is stated becomes commonly used in higher education.

WP:ELNO.13

Pro: WP:ELNO.13 states that "the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject ... If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked". I could not agree more. The suggested insertion includes one internal off-topic link, the Mizar system link, that is needed in order to introduce the two on-topic external deep links.

Mizar links and gibberish

Con: External links should provide something recognizably useful to the topic of the page: these external links just lead to gibberish. Some abstract scheme for proving things related to sigma-fields is not directly connected to sigma-fields. Consider all the other similar schemes described in Category:Theorem proving software systems (and similar categories)... are all of these to be mentioned in every mathematical article? I don't see any of these as having been treated in the way you are trying. Why do you think that Wikipedia readers need to be made aware of formalized mathematical structures in the topic of the page they are reading? Do you think that Principia Mathematica should also be linked in the same places? I suggest you start a discussion on the mathematics project talk page ...Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics ... for a sensible/agreed way of dealing with these topics. Melcombe (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted an invitation to this page.Yaniv256 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Con: They are gibberish to me to. I've come here from the maths project page and have never heard of the Mizar system, which I think will be true of most readers. So they are not useful links, and are likely to confuse far more readers than they help.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pro: Can I suggest a review of the distinction between gibberish and a formal language? Allow me also to suggest a read of the Mizar system page before taking part in the discussion.Yaniv256 (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General

I do hope we can have some productive discussion about these issues, as I am sure that together we can improve the way in which Wikipedia readers are made aware of formalized mathematical structures in the topic of the page they are reading. Yaniv256 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best place to have this discussion

Whatever the merits or otherwise of the Mizar system, this page is for discussion of the Wikipedia article on that topic. The issue of whether it should be used on Wikipedia does not belong here. Probably Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Mizar_system_external_links_discussion is the right place. Deltahedron (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 '''Con''': External links should provide something recognizably useful to the topic of the page: these external links just lead to gibberish. Some abstract scheme for proving things related to sigma-fields is not directly connected to sigma-fields. Consider all the other similar schemes described in [[:Category:Theorem proving software systems]] (and similar categories)... are all of these to be mentioned in every mathematical article? I don't see any of these as having been treated in the way you are trying. Why do you think that Wikipedia readers need to be made aware of formalized mathematical structures in the topic of the page they are reading? Do you think that [[Principia Mathematica]] should also be linked in the same places? I suggest you start a discussion on the mathematics project talk page ...[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics]] ... for a sensible/agreed way of dealing with these topics. [[User:Melcombe|Melcombe]] ([[User talk:Melcombe|talk]]) 15:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
-::Done.[[User:Yaniv256|Yaniv256]] ([[User talk:Yaniv256|talk]]) 16:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
+::I posted an invitation to this page.[[User:Yaniv256|Yaniv256]] ([[User talk:Yaniv256|talk]]) 16:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 :'''Con''': They are gibberish to me to. I've come here from the maths project page and have never heard of the Mizar system, which I think will be true of most readers. So they are not useful links, and are likely to confuse far more readers than they help.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 16:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
-::'''Pro''': Can I suggest a review of the distinction between [[gibberish]] and a [[formal language]]? Allow me also to suggest a read of the [[Mizar system]] page before taking part in the discussion.[[User:Yaniv256|Yaniv256]] ([[User talk:Yaniv256|talk]]) 17:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
+'''Pro''': Can I suggest a review of the distinction between [[gibberish]] and a [[formal language]]? Allow me also to suggest a read of the [[Mizar system]] page before taking part in the discussion.[[User:Yaniv256|Yaniv256]] ([[User talk:Yaniv256|talk]]) 17:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 ====General====