Jump to content

Talk:National Museum of Mathematics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reference section

[edit]

I've removed the "Notes" line from the reference section. There are no other types of references which makes the "Notes" disambiguation redundant.

Beyond My Ken reverted this but failed to give a reason why.

WP:MOS's subsection, WP:FNNR, specifically states that either are OK which clearly indicates that one or the other should be used. Using both is redundant. WCS100 (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"References" are a general category of things, "notes" is a specific type of reference. You'll see this usage in hundreds of article. Please don't revert again, ArbCom has noted that edit warring on MOS matters is to be avoided. BMK (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's redundant as you have no other reference types in this article. You've yet to give a reason why we should ignore the redundancy. If you don't give a reason that isn't WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'll be reverting in the next 24 hours.
You've been around long enough to know that your WP:OTHERSTUFF argument holds no water. I could easily provide more examples where article don't have "Notes" in a Reference section when there isn't anything more than references. As for citing the ArbCom ruling, you and I both know that you have the first revert and the lesser argument.
Again, unless you come up with a logical reason for the redundancy, I'm going to revert. Is it possible that you have some ownership issues with this article. You've reverted over something some small and redundant and so far, your only arguments are WP:OTHERSTUFF and essentially "we should ignore the redundancy because edit warring is wrong". Surely you can see both sides of the latter argument are equally in the right. WCS100 (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I make the change earlier since a revision would be your third revert in 24 hours and you've failed to give a single reason to keep the redundancy besides the idea that edit warring is bad even though you're engaging in it. WCS100 (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been here long enough to know – 9 years, actually, and 144k+ edits – what goes and what doesn't, but you apparently haven't been here long enough to know that what MOS is saying is that there are many ways to do the reference section, and that no single one of them is "right". Edit warring over that is idiotic, friend, and I suggest you stop.

As for reasons, I gave you one, but apparently you were too busy being "right" to take it in: "References" are a category of things, which include bibliographies, interviews, primary sources, secondary sources, and various kinds of note: footnotes, endnotes, explanatory note, citations, etc. Thus it makes sense in a "References" section to specify what kind of references we are talking about, in this case endnotes, which we indicate with the subtitle "notes". There is nothing in MOS that forbids this, and nothing in MOS that requires any other format. That MOS mentions other formats is fine, it's just doing its job as a guideline for editors who are wondering how something might be done. It is not mandatory, and it is not policy, and must not be upheld as if it was – such editing is disruptive.

I suggest you edit for a while longer, and get something more than a mere 1000 edits under your belt, and maybe you'll get the hang of the place. In the meantime, please don't restore your deletion. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suggest you take a closer look at WP:BRD. "Notes" has been in the article for quite a while, so your removal was a Bold edit. I Reverted it, so the very next step you should have taken was to start a discussion, not to restore your edit and then start a discussion. Your edit to restore was the first step in edit-warring, while my reversion returned the article to the status quo ante, which is what BRD specifies that the article should remain in while discussion is going on. (Of course, usually BRD is more important when discussing matter of significance, not your deletion of "Notes", but it still pertains nonetheless.) BMK (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Nothing in the MOS forbids notes but common sense would suggest that disambiguation, when no disambiguation is needed is redundant.
How about we go back to your initial OTHERSTUFF argument because it's the only argument you've made besides "nothing says we can't do this."
For every article you provide that includes a "Notes" subjection in a Reference section when there are no other types of references given, I'll provide two that don't. If you want to stick to articles that get over 10,000 view per month, we can. As a reminder, if you think this is petty, remember, this was your idea.
Also, in WP:ATAEW and WP:ATTP (even though it's about AfD) clearly why bandying about your edit number like it means anything to this discussion should be avoided. I could go on and say that assuming that this is my first account, especially to someone who's not using their first account, is an assumption of bad faith but that's not going to get us anywhere.
If you have any other ideas for settling this issue besides "I've edited longer than you", "It's not not OK", and WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'd be happy to hear them. WCS100 (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another guideline that says to use "References" or "Notes" (not both): WP:INCITE which is a subsection of WP:Citing sources. Yes, it's a guideline but why should we ignore it? WCS100 (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is, unfortunately, a rather typical Wikipedia experience: an incredibly minor and unimportant matter, and you want to talk it to death. Well, you may have all the time in the world to fritter away on idiocy like this, but I don't. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, not to natter with you - I suggest you find something productive to do and drop this. BMK (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. You're the one who's attempting to force a redundancy despite being presented with guidelines that don't line up with your thinking. If this is a common issue for you, perhaps you're the common denominator?
I've taken your lack of response as a lack of desire to continue defending your point of view on the issue and removed the redundancy. WCS100 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just being flippant. Do we need to take this to another venue? WCS100 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to assume that you're refusing to participate in this conversation, that you've made all the points you wish to make despite my rebuttals, and that you'll revert no matter what discussion goes on here on the basis on non-consensus? 18:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm the only one participating in this discussion, I'm going to make the change in the next 24 hours. I'm also going to split the reference section into two. WCS100 (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Status of exhibits

[edit]

The article may need some updating. The status of the Math Midway and other exhibits is unclear. Was the one sold to Singapore a copy, or a singular version (and thus no longer at MoMath)? Which exhibits are (semi)permanent, and which are temporary or traveling, needs to be clarified. Reify-tech (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Museum of Mathematics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Museum of Mathematics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Museum_of_Mathematics&oldid=1209325750"