edit  Frequently asked questions (FAQ) 

To view an explanation to the answer, click on the [show] link to the right of the question.
Are Wikipedia's mathematics articles targeted at professional mathematicians?
No, we target our articles at an appropriate audience. Usually this is an interested layman. However, this is not always possible. Some advanced topics require substantial mathematical background to understand. This is no different from other specialized fields such as law and medical science. If you believe that an article is too advanced, please leave a detailed comment on the article's talk page. If you understand the article and believe you can make it simpler, you are also welcome to improve it, in the framework of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Why is it so difficult to learn mathematics from Wikipedia articles?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be pedagogic treatments of their topics. Readers who are interested in learning a subject should consult a textbook listed in the article's references. If the article does not have references, ask for some on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Wikipedia's sister projects Wikibooks which hosts textbooks, and Wikiversity which hosts collaborative learning projects, may be additional resources to consider. See also: Using Wikipedia for mathematics selfstudy Why are Wikipedia mathematics articles so abstract?
Abstraction is a fundamental part of mathematics. Even the concept of a number is an abstraction. Comprehensive articles may be forced to use abstract language because that language is the only language available to give a correct and thorough description of their topic. Because of this, some parts of some articles may not be accessible to readers without a lot of mathematical background. If you believe that an article is overly abstract, then please leave a detailed comment on the talk page. If you can provide a more downtoearth exposition, then you are welcome to add that to the article. Why don't Wikipedia's mathematics articles define or link all of the terms they use?
Sometimes editors leave out definitions or links that they believe will distract the reader. If you believe that a mathematics article would be more clear with an additional definition or link, please add to the article. If you are not able to do so yourself, ask for assistance on the article's talk page. Why don't many mathematics articles start with a definition?
We try to make mathematics articles as accessible to the largest likely audience as possible. In order to achieve this, often an intuitive explanation of something precedes a rigorous definition. The first few paragraphs of an article (called the lead) are supposed to provide an accessible summary of the article appropriate to the target audience. Depending on the target audience, it may or may not be appropriate to include any formal details in the lead, and these are often put into a dedicated section of the article. If you believe that the article would benefit from having more formal details in the lead, please add them or discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Why don't mathematics articles include lists of prerequisites?
A wellwritten article should establish its context well enough that it does not need a separate list of prerequisites. Furthermore, directly addressing the reader breaks Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. If you are unable to determine an article's context and prerequisites, please ask for help on the talk page. Why are Wikipedia's mathematics articles so hard to read?
We strive to make our articles comprehensive, technically correct and easy to read. Sometimes it is difficult to achieve all three. If you have trouble understanding an article, please post a specific question on the article's talk page. Why don't math pages rely more on helpful YouTube videos and media coverage of mathematical issues?
Mathematical content of YouTube videos is often unreliable (though some may be useful for pedagogical purposes rather than as references). Media reports are typically sensationalistic. This is why they are generally avoided. Why is wikipedia lagging behind the rest of the world in not creating an article on τ (2π)?
The notability of τ=2π is not yet established. Neither the mathematics community nor the math education community has responded to the proposed new constant in any notable way. τ=2π does not at this point of time meet the criteria of notability as per Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). See also Turn (geometry)#Tau proposal. 
This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 15 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. 
WikiProject Mathematics was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 21 February 2011. If you wish to get involved with the Signpost, please visit the Newsroom. 
A Wikipedia ad has been created for this project page





Hi, I'd like to seek input on whether the captioned title would be considered notable, given the works of previous mathematicians. Thanks. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 07:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Wordrepresentable graph was written by an editor who is a name match for the claimed inventor of the term, whose research also dominates the references. Is this actually a valid topic, or is it vanity spam? Guy (help!) 09:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I suggest moving the article from draft space to main article immediately. I've never heard of this, but its clearly a goodquality article on something that is rather remarkable and quite interesting. I'm wondering how it might relate string rewriting to graph rewriting. What about directed graphs? So, semicommutative monoids, e.g. history monoids have word representations and arise with things like parallel communicating finite state machines (which are just directed graphs). There's a bunch of interesting questions that could be posed. (All of mine are trivial.) Sorry I'm easily excitable. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
For now, I have put the article back at the mainspace (since the initial concern has been proven invalid). It does appear to have a COI concern; so I have put the COI template. — Taku (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone and thanks for your opinions about the page created by me. I was not aware of this discussion but Guy let me know about it yesterday, and he said that I can contribute to it. I was thinking to comment on some of your points which would hopefully clarify the situation. Yes, I’m a real mathematician http://personal.strath.ac.uk/sergey.kitaev/index.html not related in any way to Alexei Kitaev and I indeed wrote a letter of recommendation for JBL in Sept 2011 :) This is my very first contribution to Wiki, and I should admit that I probably violated (unintentionally!) some of the basic principles of Wiki for which I’m sorry. When I was creating the page, I was thinking to produce a high quality, useful page similar to the page about another area of my research interest, namely, https://en.wikipedia.org/wikipedia/Permutation_pattern , and I thought I’ve succeeded (at least it was appreciated by the many people working in the area), but then problems came along with various issues around Wiki policies. I still don’t see anything wrong with me creating the page, rather than someone else doing this as indeed probably no one knows this subject better than me, and every statement in the article is supported by an explicit reference to a published source, so every one could check that this is not a spam article, e.g. by following the references, or by contacting any of the 35+ researches mentioned on the page (in the references). This is true that I’m involved in the majority of publications in the area so far, but there are many other papers related to the topic that I have no involvement in, and the area is definitely mature enough (with a Springer book published about it, so cannot be WP:TOOSOON) to have a Wiki page dedicated to it (although, of course, I’m biased when saying this). I think it’s indeed a good idea suggested by someone to make the article a bit less technical, or at least to have some intro that can be understood by nonexperts. Finally, 67.198.37.16 suggested several interesting ideas for further development of the area which I have no idea about except the case of directed graphs is handled by the notion of semitransitive orientation. Namely, if your graph is oriented in a semitransitive way, you can represent it by words, if not then you cannot do it. Thanks again for all your opinions. S. Kitaev (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 3 April 2020
I have just put up an article on this mathematician, chiefly notable for his administrative contributions as a dean at Brown and as secretary of the American Mathematical Society. Someone who is a mathematician could probably put more into it about his mathematical contributions. His PhD was on "Improper Multiple Integrals"; he was a student of James Pierpont at Yale. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. I have just turned group algebra into a disambig page as we have two articles group ring and group algebra of a locally compact group (the former a concept in ring theory, the latter in functional analysis). This, quite predictably, resulted in a number of internal links to this new disambig page that need to be disambig'ed. I have done a few but I can also use helps from other editors with free time (or those pretending to have free time). — Taku (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Gentlemen (and ladies), are there mathematicians here? What I see in this discussion needs understanding and explanation by specialists. Eozhik (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I have recently been directed here. I have been trying to write a short article on Copula, and it keeps getting rejected for one or the other reason (https://en.wikipedia.org/wikipedia/Draft:Copula_in_signal_processing). I would be thankful if someone from WikiProject Mathematics could help. Thanks Robert McClenon for introducing me to this place. Earthianyogi (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
{{uMark viking}} {Talk}
17:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)User:Mark viking Thank you for your suggestions. Yes, you are absolutely right that this article is about copula in signal processing. I have read this article Copula (probability theory), and created 2 sections in it as well. One about the use of copula in medicine and other in signal processing. I also made some other edits to this page. I already proposed to merge the two articles, but it seems like many different people with many different opinions have a say on why gets listed on Wikipedia. I was hoping to put a page with the current content on it, and use the help of more experienced editors to improve it. But it seems that I am not getting anywhere... Also, I do not believe that a person with less mathematical understanding would be interested in this article anyways; however, it may not always be the case.
This makes me wonder whether we ought to have an article titled Discrete analytic function. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 9#Biquadratic function about the primary meaning of the term. D.Lazard (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Many times I have heard of a set of sets being partially ordered by inclusion, but I don't know that I've ever heard of its being partially ordered by "containment". Should the article titled Containment order be retitled Inclusion order or something like that? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
{{uMark viking}} {Talk}
17:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)I suggest to complete MOS:MATH by a section on short descriptions and See also sections. I could be placed as the last subsection of MOS:MATH#structure. Here is a suggestion for this section.
According to WP:Short description, every article should have a short description. This allows the reader to know what about is an article without having to open its page.
Sort descriptions are visible at the top of a page on mobile devices, and also on desktop browsers after activation of the relevant gadget (see WP:Short description#Instructions).
Short descriptions are particularly useful in sections "See also" as they allow to transform automatically an indiscriminate list of links into a more useful annotated list. For example, some seealso sections contain the link
If the link is entered as {{annotated linkLill's method}}, it becomes
 Lill's method – Graphical method for the real roots of a polynomial
Short descriptions must appear in a template {{short description}} for being visible in annoted links. Short descriptions are also useful for redirects to a section or an anchor. In this case the {{short description}} must appear in the line that follows the magic word "#Redirect".
Please, give your opinion on such an addition in MOS:MATH, and be free to improve my draft.
Adapting the seealso sections this way requires some work, but it is useful not only for readers, but also for project members: the spam items become immediately visible. D.Lazard (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
what about is an articleand
they allow to transform automaticallyare somewhat awkward. Using
what an article is aboutand
they transformare better. — MarkH_{21}^{talk} 14:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
A user has removed the advisor of Eric Weinstein cited to both the Notices of the AMS and the Math Genealogy Project on the basis that the subject himself stated in a podcast that he had no advisor. I have opened a discussion here, and participation on which source to use is welcome. — MarkH_{21}^{talk} 13:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Ammann–Beenker tiling#Strange statement. Feedback is welcome. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Some attention from statisticsinclined Wikipedians would be helpful for resolving the question at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Epidemic curve graphics. Thanks! {{uSdkb}} ^{talk} 22:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Back in 2009, the former was AFDed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carol_number with a noconsensus result. A decade on, it doesn't look like these numbers are any more notable, and the sourcing remains questionable. Should they be (re)nominated? Boldly merged ref the AFD? ^{~}Hydronium^{~}Hydroxide^{~(Talk)~} 15:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)