Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Main pageDiscussionContentAssessmentParticipantsResources

Nominated Cleo (mathematician) for GA

Hello! If anyone could put in the time to GA review an article that I created in light of the recent identity reveal of the notorious Math Stack Exchange user Cleo, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 16:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but heavy reliance upon YouTube and Reddit (i.e., unreviewed, user-generated content) is not suitable for biographies of living people. XOR'easter (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing! I didn't directly use YouTube and Reddit as sources - as I understand it, since Wikipedia is a tertiary source, if a different source (Meduza and multiple others) uses those as sources, then isn't using Meduza to confirm the statements fair game? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Only if those other sources like Meduza are themselves reliable. Anybody can watch a YouTube video, listen to a podcast, skim a Reddit thread, etc., and mindlessly repeat what they found there to draw clicks to their own website. None of them seem to have done in-depth reporting here, just aggregation. (The number of websites that recycle glurge from social media to pass themselves off as "news" is stupefyingly high.) Meduza overall might be reputable enough to be usable, but the other two look extremely iffy. Maybe ask at the Reliable Sources noticeboard to get wider input on that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Leaving aside GA, I'm not sure this meets Wikipedia's "notability" standard. The only source is one podcast interview. Maybe it could be a small section of an article about Math Stack Exchange, or maybe even that is pushing it.

(Aside: internet sources claim that the identity of Cleo was recently figured out, and confirmed by the person behind it.) –jacobolus (t) 17:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, the previous version of the article that I had written up [1] had several more sources, but they were removed for being aggregates. What are your thoughts on those sources? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should be Doxxing people, and these revisions should probably be deleted from the database. (But the whole article getting deleted as non-notable would also solve the problem.) –jacobolus (t) 17:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I’m a bit confused. Is it doxxing if the person behind Cleo confirmed it on their own Stack Exchange profile? They admitted that they created Cleo and confirmed it with McCann, and several sources have published it as well. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

In that case we probably don't need to get too aggressive about scrubbing it immediately, and can let normal processes take their usual time. I expect this article to end up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. –jacobolus (t) 17:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Are the Russian/Uzbek sources along with the Scientific American interview not sufficient for GNG? I specifically waited for the sources to be available before I tried creating the article. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, they can only contribute to notability if they're reliable, which they might or might not be. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I removed the GA nomination to gain clearer consensus first. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the article easily meets SIGCOV. In fact, I found out about this reading the sciam article, and only then checked out the Wikipedia article. The sourcing is problematic for GA, as others have noted. It strikes me that this is an article whose goal should not be GA. Actually, that would be a disimprovement. Tito Omburo (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. What are your thoughts on including Cleo’s true identity in the article? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Really? The "significant coverage" here is a single podcast interview with a random prolific stackexchange participant. "Has ever been the subject of a podcast" doesn't seem to me like what the standard suggests, but maybe I haven't contributed to enough notability deletion discussions to have a good sense of where Wikipedians typically come down on the question. –jacobolus (t) 06:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Interviews are almost never considered to count as significant coverage for notability in deletion discussions. The problem is that WP:GNG notability needs multiple sources that are independent of the subject and each other, reliably published, and provide in-depth material about the subject. Interviews are not independent because it is the subject saying stuff. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

In this case, it wasn't the subject being interviewed though. Tito Omburo (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to characterize the interview as with a "random prolific stackexchange participant". Multiple academics were interviewed: Ron Gordon is a former physicist, Anthony Bonato is a mathematician at Toronto University, and Jay Cummings is an associate professor at California State University, Sacramento. Plus, Cleo themselves were not the subject of the interview, so this source is independent. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 16:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

While unusual for a mathematics article, I'd view Cleo (mathematician) as similar to our GA Celebrity Number Six (AfD, talk page discussion), insofar as it summarises traditional media reporting of events on 'social media' (Stack Exchange and YouTube). While the sourcing is thinner (SciAm and Meduza instead of NYT, the AV Club, and Wired), I'd view it as adequate for V, though not for GA status unless we can find more reliable sources. While we should be careful about stating the true identity of Cleo (BLP broadly applies), I would support expanding the Identity section to note the Feb 2025 claim that Cleo has been re-identified, sourced to Meduza — analogous to Satoshi Nakamoto#Possible identities. Preimage (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

"Somebody watched a YouTube video and made a post on a random website with unclear and perhaps nonexistent editorial standards repeating what the video said" is not the ideal basis for a biography article in an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Meduza is one of the better-known (albeit small) Russian free press outlets, similar to Novaya Gazeta and The Insider. RSN considers them generally reliable, with WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_433#c-My_very_best_wishes-20240405162900-Doug_Weller-20240405100100 being the only dissent I could find (discounting a Meduza explainer due to its being an additional considerations apply source, as well as lacking a byline). The article we are discussing is attributed to Mikhail Gerasimov, described elsewhere on the site as their resident video game and IT expert.

While the depth of reporting in sources used on Celebrity Number Six is somewhat greater, e.g. the NYT and Vanity Fair also interviewed Sardá, as we've just been discussing, interviews with the subjects of articles are generally less useful than non-interview reporting. Meduza didn't simply re-report what was in McCann's YouTube video: they also checked this against evidence on Stack Exchange and statements by Reshetnikov on X. Preimage (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The Meduza item might be acceptable; the others look more like fly-by-night websites that just aggregate content for clicks. XOR'easter (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. All the other Russian/Uzbek sources are based on the February 20 Meduza article (Gazeta.uz is a direct translation, other articles are partial summaries, most were posted a few days later, and many use the same lead image with direct attribution to Meduza). WP sourcing relies on quality, not quantity; rather than swamping readers with less-reliable sources, I'll switch the other ones over to Meduza. Preimage (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The GA nomination was withdrawn but there is still an active DYK nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Cleo (mathematician). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I added the DYK nomination because I still believe that it's a good candidate for it. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 03:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I was not intending any specific criticism; merely pointing participants here to a related discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the article is written in a non-neutral point of view (W:NPOV). I have added a section for discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cleo_(mathematician) PatrickR2 (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Tensor categories: content, notability etc

A relatively new editor @Meelo Mooses has over the last couple of weeks created at least 10 (!) new pages, Modular tensor category, Fibonacci category, Fibonacci anyons, Algebraic theory of topological quantum information, Unitary modular tensor category, Bruguières modularity theorem, Modular group representation, Rank-finiteness for fusion categories, Schauenburg-Ng theorem, Müger's theorem; added a large amount of new content to an existing BLP Alexei Kitaev and created a new (Wikipedia) category . I am fairly certain that some (perhaps most) have Wikipedia problems, for instance not encyclopedic, peacock terms, written like essays etc -- I have tagged a few of the pages in WP:NPP, not all. Those are perhaps not unsurprising for a new editor.

More critical is to what extent these are all notable and/or duplicated by existing articles. Most of these appear to be related to aspects of theoretical physics, quantum field theory, quantum information (although they are not showing up as new physics pages). This is a bit outside my comfort zone, so I am looking for comments here, or please add to the appropriate talk pages. (If you "adopt" some of these please let others know as this is a BIG list of pages to overview.)

N.B., I have posted to Talk Physics because I think this is more theoretical physics than math, but I may be wrong as most of the pages start with "In Mathematics". Please post there at WT:Physics#Tensor categories: content, notability etc to minimize overlapping/duplicating comments. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

MathSciNet journal abbreviations

Note that if you have Template:Infobox_journal#Search_links, as well as TokenZero's infobox journal prettifier, enabled this will be substantially easier to handle.

User:TokenzeroBot/abbrev params contains a list of journal articles with potentially missing MathScinNet abbreviations.

For example, Annales Polonici Mathematici has the probable mathscinet abbreviation Ann. Polon. Math.. You can (and should) verify if this is the case in [2] (or alternatively, [3] if you have a subscription to MathSciNet).

If the abbreviation is correct (and here, it is), all you need to do is add it with |mathscinet=Ann. Polon. Math.

Any help you can give with this is greatly appreciated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

"if you have a subscription" link results in:

Matches: 2

Journal results for "0066-2216"

Ann. Polon. Math. Annales Polonici Mathematici [Indexed cover-to-cover; Reference List Journal]

Ann. Polon. Math. Polska Akademia Nauk. Annales Polonici Mathematici [No longer indexed]

But really this is a job for a script. There are too many to make searching and editing these one-by-one a useful thing for a human editor to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

There's about 77 journals in need of such abbreviations. I've done way bigger jobs myself, it just takes time. Having help helps a lot, which is why I'm asking here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The reasons for abbreviating journal titles rather than giving the full title are good when applied to things printed on paper. They don't apply to Wikipedia at all. Yet still people do it here. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Having the info in the infobox is critical for two reasons 1) if you put |mathscinet=J. Math. Psych. in the infobox, it will prompt you to create relevant Category:Redirects from MathSciNet abbreviations, if they don't exist. 2) Now if you search for J. Math. Psych., it will take you to the relevant journal, and you know that it stands for Journal of Mathematical Psychology (instead of say Journal of Mathematics in Psychiatry). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Proof 1 of Interior extremum theorem

Every single proof I've looked at resembled proof 2. Has anyone come across a textbook or paper that uses a proof similar to proof 1 of the Interior extremum theorem? Based5290 :3 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Based5290: I'm assuming you couldn't find it in the citations? Gracen (they/them) 21:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Nope. If I remember and read correctly, those that give a proof all give something resembling proof 2. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd say we remove it unless someone finds a source containing the proof, then. Gracen (they/them) 21:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Tikhomirov (1990) Stories about maxima and minima, p. 105:

We assume that ⁠$f_{0}'({\hat {x}})=k\neq 0$⁠ and show that ⁠${\hat {x}}$⁠ is not a local extremum. We suppose that ⁠$k>0$⁠. By the definition of a limit, the fact that $\textstyle \lim _{x\to 0}|r(x)|/|x|=0$ (where ⁠$r(x)=f_{0}({\hat {x}}+x)-f_{0}({\hat {x}})-kx$⁠) implies that there is a ⁠$\delta >0$⁠ such that if $|x|<\delta$ then $|r(x)|<(k/2)|x|$. But then for ⁠$x>0$⁠, ⁠$r(x)\geq -(k/2)x$⁠, so that $$f_{0}({\hat {x}}+x)=f_{0}({\hat {x}})+kx+r(x)\geq f_{0}({\hat {x}})+kx-{\frac {k}{2}}x=f_{0}({\hat {x}})+{\frac {k}{2}}x>f_{0}({\hat {x}}),$$ and for ⁠$x<0$⁠, ⁠$r(x)\leq -(k/2)x$⁠, so that $$f_{0}({\hat {x}}+x)=f_{0}({\hat {x}})+kx+r(x)\leq f_{0}({\hat {x}})+kx-{\frac {k}{2}}x=f_{0}({\hat {x}})+{\frac {k}{2}}x<f_{0}({\hat {x}}).$$ In other words, to the left of ⁠${\hat {x}}$⁠ the value of ⁠$f_{0}$⁠ is less than ⁠$f_{0}({\hat {x}})$⁠ and to the right of ⁠${\hat {x}}$⁠ it is greater than ⁠$f_{0}({\hat {x}})$⁠. This means that ⁠${\hat {x}}$⁠ is neither a maximum nor a minimum. This completes the proof.

(But having two proofs where the main idea is really more or less the same is probably not necessary; I don't think this proof #1 is adding much whether or not we link a source.) –jacobolus (t) 05:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Why do we even have these proofs in the article? Unless the proof itself is particularly significant or particularly enlightening, it should not be there. We definitely should not be including proofs that are not based on published sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I concur. PatrickR2 (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

In an article about a theorem having at least one proof seems like a fine idea. –jacobolus (t) 02:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

For anyone curious about the history, JSTOR 43695566 is kind of interesting (also cf. JSTOR 41133963), though I'm not sure there's any concise way to communicate it in the context of this article, since mathematical conventions and priorities have changed significantly since Fermat's time. –jacobolus (t) 04:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Idempotency of entailment

I'm lost. I only got to Stats 3. Please help to source this stub and explain it in an educated layperson's perspective. Bearian (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

This article was clearly written for people who already know the subject. It is now a redirect. D.Lazard (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

That is sadly true of many math articles. —Tamfang (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Not all mathematics topics have its own article, I suppose. WP:NEED? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Trapezoid article's problem

Apparently the Trapezoid's American English writes differently than the British trapezium, and I'm having trouble with the content including the characteristics while I'm trying to improve it, and even to understand it;WP:UNDUE???. Yet, the remainder of the article seems to talk about inclusive definition, rather than exclusive; so what happens if the article contains both definitions? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Mathematics texts should try to always use the inclusive definitions in this and similar cases. The exclusive definitions are historical relics that are confusing and lead to a proliferation of ugly case analyses. However, it is essential to explain the difference at the top of an article like this, because both versions are commonly found. –jacobolus (t) 07:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

While we're at it, Rhomboid should probably be merged into Parallelogram. The slight variation of definition isn't sufficient basis for an independent encyclopedia article. –jacobolus (t) 07:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree and have tagged them for a proposed merge. Interested editors are invited to participate in a discussion at Talk:Parallelogram#Proposed merge from Rhomboid. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeterminate equation

Is this really a thing? The article was created by Jagged 85, which is one point of suspicion, and the sources are very poor, disagree with each other, and don't support any of the article content. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a pretty well-ramified concept in algebra, to answer your question. Remsense ‥ 论 01:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe merge (redirect) to Diophantine equation

In the third century Diophantus attempted a systematic study and in fact nowadays indeterminate equations are often called Diophantine equations.

• Keng, Hua Loo, and Hua Loo Keng. "Indeterminate equations." Introduction to Number Theory (1982): 276-299.

Johnjbarton (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This suggests that it's a thing, although not either the thing the sources say nor the thing that occupies most of the text ... 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Huh? "Indeterminate equations" are a notable topic covered in Diophantine equation. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of "indeterminate equation" in the article Diophantine equation. Maybe I misunderstand you.

Is the definition given at Indeterminate equation (an equation having more than one solution) even correct? The source cited is not obviously reliable to me. Mgnbar (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The source discusses plural "Indeterminate equations" and says they are equivalent to Diophantine equations. I added the ref to Diophantine equations. The singular form "indeterminate equation" would, I suppose, have to be a single equation with have 2 or more unknowns and addition constraints (eg integers only). Thus it would be a "Diophantine equation", an exact match to Diophantine equation.

The definition "an equation having more than one solution" is not correct: it is incomplete per the above source:

• By indeterminate equations we mean equations in which the number of unknowns occurring exceed the number of equations given, and that these unknowns are subject to further constraints such as being integers, or positive integers, or rationals etc.

At least in my opinion a book published by Springer with >1500 citations should count as a reliable source.

Also in my opinion you should boldly redirect the article with two lame web cite sources to Diophantine equation. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Redirecting or merging Indeterminate equation into Diophantine equation is blatantly non sensical:

• in the context to Diophantine equations, the phrase "indeterminate equation" is never used.
• the phrase "indeterminate equation" is used only for equations for which the real or complex solutions are sought.
• The equation ⁠$\sin x=e^{y}$⁠ is clearly indeterminate, but has nothing to do with Diophantine equations.

The only relationship between the two concepts is that Diophantine equations become indeterminate equations when considered as equations over the real or complex numbers. D.Lazard (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Neveertheless, the article Indeterminate equation is very poor. I suggest to merge it into Underdetermined system, the correct name for the concept. D.Lazard (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Johnjbarton, both my second comment and Mgnbar's comment are about the Wikipedia article Indeterminate equation and the sources therein. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The two sources of the Wikipediaarticle Indeterminate equation are clearly unreliable, per WP:reliable sources. Moreover most of the content of the article is not supported by these sources, and is blatant WP:Original research, for example, when asserting that quadratic equations are indeterminate equations. So, I'll redirect the article to underdetermined system, and adding there a definition of the phrase "indetermined system". D.Lazard (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@D.Lazard can you explain why you reverted my edit on Diophantine equation? Are you claiming that the source is unreliable? On what basis? Are you claiming that my edit which simply asserted

Diophantine problems or "indeterminate equations" have fewer equations than unknowns and involve finding integers that solve simultaneously all equations.

is an incorrect summary of the source which says:

In the third century Diophantus attempted a systematic study and in fact nowadays indeterminate equations are often called Diophantine equations.

? Do you have any source that backs your claim that "Indeterminate equation" should redirect to "underdetermined system"? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a better target for a redirect? Do you have a source supporting that the concept is notable enough for having its own Wikipedia article? Do you have a better way to respect Wikipedia policies and guidelines? D.Lazard (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• "Do you have a better target for a redirect?" Yes, as I have already explained and sourced per WP:Verify, Diophantine equation.
• "Do you have a source supporting that the concept is notable enough for having its own Wikipedia article?" I made no such claim, nor is there any reason to do so. The reliable source says directly that the concept of "indeterminate equations are often called Diophantine equations". All we need is a redirect and a sourced equivalence in the article Diophantine equations.
• "Do you have a better way to respect Wikipedia policies and guidelines?" Yes, put my well-sourced edit back unless you have evidence it is incorrect.

Johnjbarton (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Your edit is blatantly incorrect since the equation ⁠$\sin x=e^{y}$⁠ is a indeterminate equation that cannot be viewed as a Diophantine equation.

Also, the definition given in your source is By indeterminate equations we mean equations in which the number of unknowns occurring exceed the number of equations given, and this matches exactly the definition given in Underdetermined system. D.Lazard (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Please give a source for your claim that "⁠$\sin x=e^{y}$⁠ is clearly indeterminate".

You are misquoting the source, which says, as I quoted above:

• By indeterminate equations we mean equations in which the number of unknowns occurring exceed the number of equations given, and that these unknowns are subject to further constraints such as being integers, or positive integers, or rationals etc.

This does not match Underdetermined system. As explained in the intro to that article, the extra constraints make all of the difference. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton This "extra constraints" you mention is a red herring. I have to agree with @D.Lazard that the previous article on "Indeterminate equation" was close to useless (not properly sourced, not a notable concept, etc, etc).

Someone just changed the redirect from Underdetermined system to Indeterminate system, which seems an even better solution. (And note that a single equation can also be considered a "system" of equations, with a single equation.) One limitation of this last article is that it mentions in the lead that it covers any type of equations; but then the rest of article is focused on linear equations exclusively. It would benefit from a non-linear example. Maybe even the equation $\sin x=e^{y}$ for example. PatrickR2 (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

You folks are just making stuff up. Do you have a reference for any claim you make?

I completely agree that the article that started this discussion was junk. But indeterminate equations are diophantine. More sources:

• Calinger, R. (1996). Vita Mathematica: Historical Research and Integration with Teaching. United Kingdom: Mathematical Association of America. Page 174, an outline of Algebraic analysis, "Indeterminate or diophantine analysis, which may be view as the second main part of algebra".
• Mordell, L. J. "Indeterminate equations of the third degree." Science Progress in the Twentieth Century (1919-1933) 18.69 (1923): 39-55. "In the meantime more communications, mostly unimportant, have been published upon Diophantine Analysis than upon perhaps any other branch of mathematics"
• Bashmakova, I. G. (2019). Diophantus and Diophantine Equations. United States: American Mathematical Society.

Johnjbarton (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll just note that the entirety of volume 2 of Dicksons "History of the theory of numbers" concerns "indeterminate equations" (which is apparently synonymous with what we nowadays call diophantine equations). Tito Omburo (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe "indeterminate equation" was used historically with the meaning of "diophantine equation". But this is not the case nowadays anymore. And therefore, there should not be a separate article about it. The most we could do is mention that term as an old synonym in Diophantine equation. PatrickR2 (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, its a problem traditionally solved by some kind of disambiguation. Tito Omburo (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, that was me. I don't have any opinion other than it's the natural redirect target for articles that exist at present (a merge or other reconfiguration of content may or may not be appropriate). It seems like indeterminate system (a statement on the space of solutions) is different than underdetermined system (a statement on the number of variables), but I haven't studied any sources so ymmv. Tito Omburo (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The issue here is that the last version of indeterminate equation was pleasant and approachable for high-school students interested in the topic. By contrast, indeterminate system is obtuse and stultifying. At first, do no harm: this is a high-school math topic. Open the doors to the intended audience. This is not about some cutting-edge unsolved conjecture. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Tito Omburo (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Compound of two tetrahedra

• Compound of two tetrahedra → Stellated octahedron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Compound of two tetrahedra may also be considered as the stellated octahedron, and most sources in Google Books mentions the same. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended content

Comment: @Dedhert.Jr Since Compound of two tetrahedra is not a redirect, this likely belongs at WP:AFD. Plant🌱man (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC) @Plantman I don't think this should be in AfD. The reason is some sources mentions the stella octangula as "compound of two tetrahedra". The problem is the article has no provided sources for many different type of compounds other than stella octangula itself. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC) @Dedhert.Jr Actually we were both wrong, lol. RfD is only for those pages that are already redirects, not for things that are articles. If Compound of two tetrahedra was a redirect, yes, you'd be correct to put it here. But AFD isn't exactly appropriate either. I think you're looking for Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. (Anyone - if I'm wrong feel free to correct me). Plant🌱man (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC) @Plantman Oh yeah. How can I forget that. I'm so silly. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC) @Dedhert.Jr Nah, you're good Plant🌱man (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC) @Plantman Nevermind. Just move out to the WT:WPM instead. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC) @Dedhert.Jr Well, since you're an expert in that and not me + you proposed this, I'd rather you do it. Plant🌱man (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Members are welcome to discuss. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support merge or maybe just a redirect. I don't think there is any sourceable content at compound of two tetrahedra worth saving and merging. There is a technical difference between a stellation and a compound (the stellation has non-crossing faces with holes in the same planes where the compound has crossing triangular faces) but I don't think it's an important enough difference to have two separate articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Superfluous whitespace caused by math tags inside a blockquote

I noticed that the blockquote in Eadie–Hofstee diagram is rendered with linebreaks after each math tag, creating lots of superfluous whitespace. I tried to fix this in three ways: (i) with displaystyle inside the math tags, (ii) with span tags around the math tags, (iii) by enclosing the math tags inside a table tag inside the blockquote. The first two options did not have any noteworthy effect, while the third one looks like it might be tweaked such that it works for a particular browser setting, yet in a way that would likely not work across various platform/ browser settings. I am thus inviting the collective wisdom here to see whether we can find a workable solution. Thanks for any insights! Daniel Mietchen (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not seeing the issue, beyond what looks like "normal" rendering. Tito Omburo (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I also do not see any extra linebreaks in the blockquote, neither on a web browser (Firefox/MacOS/Vector2022) nor on the android app. @Daniel Mietchen: perhaps you can be more specific about the viewing preferences that are causing this problem for you. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick checks. I have posted a screenshot, and in my user preferences, I am using the experimental MathML rendering. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so post this as a bug wherever it will gain the attention of the people who maintain the experimental mathml rendering. Pinging some of the participants of the most recent discussion on this issue, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2024/Oct § Transition to MathML rendering as default, who might know better where to report this: User:Salix alba, User:Tercer, User:Physikerwelt. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

You should try to replace "<math>" with "<math display=inline>" or use {{tmath}} instead of "<math>...</math>". D.Lazard (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)