User talk:Jakob.scholbach/Archives/2009/May
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Group, again
Hello,
According to fr:User:Jean-Luc W, the English (and now French ;-) ) article group (algebra) may not meet its whole audience because it embraces too many concepts (see fr:Discussion:Groupe_(mathématiques)#Une_critique). I have made a statistical study about some articles fr:Utilisateur:El_Caro/Amélioration_d'articles, which seems to confirm this opinion: in spite of the brilliant improvement of the WP:en article, its traffic stagnates. What do you think of this? Do you agree? And, if so, what can we do to improve these articles? That is: where is the limit between basic and necessary concepts and the other ones? --El Caro (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have responded over there. About the traffic, I'm not sure you can get reliable info out of a few tests. At least, you would have to correlate the traffic of individual articles with the one of the whole WP, and perhaps also with all math articles. Also, I would not primarily be oriented toward getting more readers. The main goal should be to have good articles and readership counts might only be secondary for assessing that.
- A limit between basic and advanced? I don't see a limit, rather see it as a (ideally) seemless transition. In most cases, I'd say you should simply rely on an individual assessment of some article's strengths and weaknesses. For example, people have argued that more of the content of group theory should be given in the group article, but I chose to arrange it in this way. That may not be the bestest of all ways, but is an OK one, I think. Other people (especially in the FAC) would have had a more elementary introduction article for lay people... I've so far come to the conclusion that you can't possibly satisfy all wishes at a time. Instead, be bold and put forth your visions! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, as an example for the range of people's opinions see just the post preceding yours and the corresponding discussion at Talk:group (mathematics). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
IP at Vector space
Dear Jakob,
As you remember, there was quite a dispute at group (mathematics) a while ago when I reverted the edit of an IP. It seems that it has happened again - [1]. Could you please sort it out? I really am in no mood to argue with the IP based on past experience. I am more than happy for you to undo my revert, if that resolves the issue, or not do anything about it. But as you are one of the main contributers to that article, I thought it only polite to let you know. --PST 07:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, and thanks also for closely watching the articles. I think it is right to try to maintain the level we have reached thus far. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)