Talk:744 (number)

Excessive explanatory notes
while I didn't reinstate the maintenance tag, I agree with that the use of explanatory notes in this article is excessive. The article is unapproachable and very difficult to read. The explanatory footnotes should be converted to prose, factored to additional articles, or otherwise resolved. Just because other articles have similar problems doesn't mean that it's acceptable for this topic to have the same problems. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the cleanup banner "damages" the article; it helps editors with interest and expertise in this topic find articles with major work to do, and encourages readers to become editors and help with the cleanup. Putting up a banner is the whole point of having a cleanup template. The excessive nature of the footnotes is a real problem for readability. For sighted readers, it means constantly scrolling up and down or seeing popups to read what may or may not be an important note. For folks using screen readers, it means that most of the article will be read out of context and disjointed from other extents of text. That sounds like a maddeningly difficult way to learn about a topic which is already quite challenging. It does not satisfy Wikipedia's goal of ensuring its content is accessible to people with disabilities. We just need to decide whether most of the text is important enough to put in the main body, suitable for a spin-off detail article, unimportant enough to trim completely, or off-topic enough to move to a linked article. That's not something a non-expert can do. -- Beland (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I will note that it feels excessive (for the most part) if the subject matter or its points are not understood properly; but, if it is, following the information is not as difficult as it may seem, it is mathematical language whose points are built upon and re-referenced throughout (but I agree that now it is at a point where it can be rearranged differently, and matured further). I'll think about what to do, in a manner that makes it more accessible; a spin-off number-theoretical topic on a number article that is specific to a number would be a nice development, possibly. The points listed are needed, and maybe a new article can be generated, given the right ideas. If I can put it in plain language, to put the points across that have been mentioned in another format is not necessarily [easy] to do for the sake of unity in the subject matter, unless it is in a single article (at least the main points).
 * One solution is to reduce the notes section (i.e. reduce redundant language) and put much of the material into the mainspace, in a manner still that permits the important points to remain exhibited more strongly. I can do that, it'll simply lengthen the main sections of the article more visually (mainly), and would work as long as the flow is sustained and the quality of information remains (whose layout would hopefully be further improved). How does that sound? Radlrb (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That would certainly be a big improvement. -- Beland (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. I will note on my own train of thoughts, that the style is per se not bad, as it currently stands, nor for the pages of the 24-cell and 600-cell; it is just not a general style that is inclined for a general reader that is not accustomed to the depth of the subject matter (from the notions, and values), and that is true. The thing, so to speak, is that the information here lends itself to complexity very quickly (in this topic), so to humanize it or give it some juice is not always easy. It's very meticulous and also delicate information, so I need some time to create a new architecture different from how it is laid out now, and what might/will follow. Radlrb (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC) What is unfortunate is that the accessibility, is not great. I forgot to mention that, so that is something that needs change (however, there may still and maybe I might say, will (Radlrb (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)) exist a large number of notes; each shorter, and maybe with a different overall function). Radlrb (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like all the explanatory footnotes are only used in the text once. A relatively easily solution would be to simply move the contents of the efns into the main text. If one doesn't seem relevant, just drop it or add it to a more-relevant article, leaving an internal link from this article. Reorganizing the existing text doesn't seem necessary to fix the excessive footnote issue. Though "humanizing" the article to make it more accessible to a general audience would be nice too, that seems like an orthogonal problem. -- Beland (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, that sounds like a good approach. Do you need help executing that plan? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Beland & @Mikeblas, indeed it's easier than it seems. My idea is to move the notes into the main text as we mentioned, and partition it appropriately with subheadings. I will get around to doing some of it by the end of next week, maybe Friday. Once I do a little work, you can let me know how it reads, and further improve too (please feel free to do some work now if you'd like). We also can add inf. into other articles (e.g. for points relating to 114 and the Mertens function, this could be relayed to the article there, and reiterated here more lightly; etc.) I poured coffee over my computer, so I might need to replace some parts before I can edit again more freely here at home, other than through my phone. In a week's time I should be able to do some meaningful edits. We can work on putting it together here in a manner that reads well and is entirely accessible, since this is also partially experimental (given the depth and amount of information for this number article). Radlrb (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that 5-cell, 16-cell, 120-cell, 600-cell, and 744 (number) all have the same problem. In some cases they have exactly the same notes, so if you have gone through one it might be easy for you to spot those on the other articles that duplicate material in other articles and can be dropped in favor of a link. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Indeed, for Wikipedia at least (it’s a style, not for here). I am going to start working with more momentum on partitioning inf. properly this coming month for this page; I’ll have a look at the polychora articles too. I’ve been carefully contemplating how to move information, which to keep here and which to move elsewhere. Radlrb (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)