User talk:David Eppstein#Always precious

Archives

2006, 2007 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2009a 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2009e 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d 2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2013d 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2018d 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d 2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2020d 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d 2022a, 2022b, 2022c, 2022d 2023a, 2023b, 2023c, 2023d 2024a, 2024b, 2024c, 2024d 2025a, 2025b

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, I prefer you add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "New section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. For discussions concerning specific Wikipedia articles, please include a link to the article, and also a link to any specific edits you wish to discuss. (You can find links for edits by using the "compare selected revisions" button on the history tab for any article.)

DYK is supposed to make readers interested in an article. Saying that "... the cube can pass through a hole of itself?" is a doppleganger for the Prince Rupert's cube, or "... the cube can be used for building houses in the Netherlands" which is suitable for Cube houses instead.

Do you have any tips for proposing DYK after GA, even though there are nothing such interesting topics? Unless I could think of targeting the audience like young generations who are into games and toys: "... the cube has many roles in games and toys such as Minecraft and Rubik's cube, respectively?" Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I have nominated it anyway. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... that there are 11 ways to unfold a cube?

... that cubes have a hexagonal cross-section, used as the floor in Dutch cube houses?

... that cubes appear in the shapes of both crystals and microorganisms? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll add these alternatives under your name. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marmalade was renominated for good article. Floating Orb (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for letting me know. My preference would be to let someone else take the next review so you get a broader sample of opinions than just mine, but I'll keep an eye on it. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you. @Chiswick Chap took it already. Floating Orb (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're in good hands then. He's a very experienced reviewer and has nominated many food articles for GA. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I actually am reviewing his article Bean. Floating Orb (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Title. MathKeduor7 (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see one well-cited Annals paper and a local teaching award. Which criterion of WP:PROF do you think these or other accomplishments pass, and why? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Annals paper alone was enough for notability per WP:GNG, not WP:PROF. Among the many citations it should have in-depth coverage of his work. And that's why I asked for the help of Gumshoe2 at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. P.S. Also, he has a recent paper with a lot of citations for his field (I think ~80). Best wishes, MathKeduor7 (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One Annals paper is enough to win the respect of a lot of other mathematicians, but not really enough to convince non-mathematicians here of academic notability. It takes a sustained record of multiple high-citation papers (not really a good match to the citation patterns of pure mathematics), a major national or international award, a named or distinguished professor title, or a society fellowship (like Fellow of the AMS). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It may be WP:TOOSOON. MathKeduor7 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Codenominator function is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Codenominator function until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

—Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notable or not? Bearian (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalker comment. The book "The Art and Craft of Problem Solving" shows signs of notability: it looks like it has been assigned reading in some university classes etc; the MAA reviewed it [1]; it is in its third edition from a major publisher [2]. Another review would make the case for book notability more solid. Anyway, a redirect to a stub on the book might be an alternative to deletion, if Zeitz is not notable. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that being a recipient of the Deborah and Franklin Haimo Awards for Distinguished College or University Teaching of Mathematics, as a major national-level academic award, passes WP:PROF#C2, but other editors might disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bearian (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There are a number of mathematical concepts named after him." (zero is a number)

Also, history merge to give credit to Gumshoe2. how? MathKeduor7 (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A history merge (or I think you mean split and then re-merge) would move old versions of entire copies of the Osserman biography into the Keller–Osserman conditions article, not merely the parts of the biography relevant to the new article. I don't think that's what you want. The initial edit summary giving credit should be sufficient. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Thank you! MathKeduor7 (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do my arguments make sense? MathKeduor7 (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of individual My Little Pony episodes is a swamp I don't care to wade into. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahahaha, okay. MathKeduor7 (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• What happens to Wikipedia editors who wade into the My Little Pony swamp: [3]. EEng 17:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a source for this, but it seems the Chinese discovered the Pythagorean theorem first by calculating the diagonal of a square, a specific case... The square was culturally important for them. MathKeduor7 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Square you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 30 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MathKeduor7 -- MathKeduor7 (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read all the sources I can get my hands into. MathKeduor7 (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found this unsourced biography that appears to be part of a "walled garden". What do you think? Bearian (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He easily passes WP:AUTHOR. Reviews of his books on JSTOR: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]