User talk:JesseStraat

Welcome!

Hi JesseStraat! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

A tip

Special:Diff/1185135930

The pages= parameter to the templates such as {{cite journal}} isn't the number of pages in the journal issue. An easy mistake to make, but it's not so. It's the page range of the article being cited, pp. 9–32 in this case (and that's how some of the citation templates indeed render it, although {{cite journal}} leaves out the pp.). Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I saw the old version of the same reference specify the number of pages, and figured it needed to be reflected. I'll pay attention to it in the future! JesseStraat (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the pages 9-32 reflect the pages of the original Russian publication. The reference that's currently there is the translated English publication. Should the original version also be part of the reference? I couldn't find a lot of information about that. Thanks. JesseStraat (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a citation of the translated version in a bibliography and it said 9–32 for that. It also gave a partial citation for the original all mixed up into one, which I personally cite separately, rather than trying to cite two things in one and cause this sort of confusion. I'll see whether I can find another citation for the translation that has the page numbers. Uncle G (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I think this specific article was released stand-alone. It is referred to as "translation number 33". According to the AMS Translations Volume 9, a compilation of translations on Lie groups, it "was originally published in pamphlet form".
  
  If it is preferred, I can also cite the AMS Translations, which I know for sure how it looks. But that's not the original paper.
  
  If needed, I can also cite the AMS Translations bundle, including page interval, but that's simply a compilation that includes the paper, rather than the original paper. JesseStraat (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a better bibliography with the translation's page numbers. You need some more sources for your draft, unless I missed the part where those two papers support the further sentences. Which is possible. Anyway, you're the one that knows your way around this, so I leave it in your hands. I've swapped in a secondary and independent source for the primary source paper itself, because editors like to see that a concept has escaped its creator and become adopted by the world at large. The no original research policy and notability guidelines make editors wary of articles where the only source is written by the person who invented the article subject. There are no doubt a fair few on this, but that's the sort of thing that you need to be looking for. Uncle G (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you! I'll look into it. JesseStraat (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Hi Uncle G, the citation with page numbers is from the compilation "AMS Translations Volume 9: Lie Groups", so a republication of the original translation. Shall I add this to the reference? Furthermore, should I change the year of publication to 1962 (the year the compilation was released?
  
  Sorry for the many questions, I'm new to this part of Wikipedia ;).
  
  Thank you! JesseStraat (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't get too lost in the details at this stage. I always try to look at it from the point of view of the basics: Where did I find it when I read it? How is a reader, or another editor working on the article, going to find it? Telling people the former and helping them do the latter is the point. Giving them alternative ways of getting there, from convenience URLs to citations of other versions, is a bonus. That said, there's a whole rabbit-hole on citing sources that one can go down. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G Thank you very much! I will look into it. JesseStraat (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether anyone from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics will wander your way, but I tried. I tend to do what amounts to random walks in Wikipedia. Tomorrow could be anything. Uncle G (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Thank you very much for your your work on Mal'cev's criterion, which looks very good for a new article on a niche mathematical topic! I encountered Mal'cev's later work on logic and algebra during my doctral studies, so I was intrigued to see the draft. Felix QW (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]