Wikipedia talk:Counting and sorting are not original research
 | Essays Low‑impact  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:Counting and sorting are not original research
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Concerns edit
I'm concerned about this essay because of the possible implication that other simple calculations are original research. What the essay should say is:- (1) Any high-school level mathematical operation is permissible, in any article, where the purpose of the operation is to summarise a source; and (2) For articles within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, undergraduate-level mathematical operations may be permissible when giving examples. (The alternative is to give an example by copy/pasting a source, but that has copyright implications.)—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- I understand the concerns. I'm kind of concerned too, and I wrote it. But I'd also caution against the term "high-school level mathematical operation" because that can arguably include calculus, higher algebra, LaPlace transforms, imaginary numbers, etc... that might be a little to "heavy" on the math side. But where do you "draw the line" ?? I'm not sure, that's why I made an "essay".--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Calculus, LaPlace transforms, and imaginary numbers were all on my high school syllabus. So were French and German. I'm allowed to use my French and German on Wikipedia. Why shouldn't I be allowed to use my mathematics? Anyone not capable of following or verifying my mathematics is welcome to ask someone independent who does. (See Talk:HIP 56948 for a good practical example of where I've needed this.)—S Marshall T/C 19:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Since when is unsourced expressions of French and German allowed on English Wikipedia?
- ❞
- I'm not sure if you should or should not. Why not write up an essay on the reasons supporting that and see what the Wikipedia body of users thinks?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've thought more on this. I don't think that putting up a Calc equation or LaPlace transform (heavy math stuff) is necessarily original research becaue these methods are taught widely in college and even at some high schools. So I don't think that they should necessarily fail the "original research" test. However, they probably would fail the Wikipedia:Writing better articles test (it's an essay also). I don't think an article or section of an article that uses more complex mathematics should be deleted because of original research (unless it truly IS original mathematical research) but it may fail other measures. It may be so confusing to enough people that consensus could deem it "delete-worthy". Just a thought.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Bravo edit
You should also add a column for $/kg and mention that mathematical calculations are not original research either. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Subclass of "Routine calculations"? edit
Pacerier (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC): ❝
- Isn't "counting and sorting" a subclass of Routine calculations?
❞