Talk:Matt Parker

Parker square AfD
A deletion discussion for new article The Parker Square, at Articles for deletion/The Parker Square, has included a suggestion that the article content be merged into this one. Please weigh in if you have an opinion on the deletion or on the potential merger. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think I am way too late for a reply, but this should be merged as the Parker Square is his creation.Josh, Thank You (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Monopoly stats
This lot probably wants to move to Monopoly (game) or a spinout article from that :

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

 * Usage of maths/mathematics is inconsistent.
 * Subject has several images on Commons but only one is used in the article.

 Ꞷ  umbolo   20:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox bloat
Oh dear, somebody called is trying to edit war and is becoming disruptive by failing to honour their part of WP:BRD. Oddly, they have accused me of trying to OWN the article simply because I had the audacity to revert something I happened to disagree with, as I'm allowed to do. This attempt to close down discussion does not wash and does not make for constructive behaviour. Sadly, this has now set a precedent of how I see this discussion going: strained, hostile, and wholly problematic, when it didn't, perhaps, need to be. Claiming OWN is a cliche tactic by some to close down discussion and to keep what they see as their correct version. It is ironic that those who claim it are more than often than not those who exhibit it as they use it to OWN their version of the article whilst at the same time, reverting anyone else on sight who might disagree with them. Using it in the wrong context is uncivil and could be considered to be a PA. But don't worry, Jd22292, not to me it's not, as I'm not a snowflake, like most on here, so I'll start the discussion for you.

One of the many reasons why I don't like Infoboxes are because they are a shit magnet. They are open to abuse and allow any numpty to come along and add crap, including that person's favourite fast food restaurant; their favourite colour; whether they are right handed, left handed, or ambidextrous; do they sit down to urinate or stand up; what car they drive; and so on and so on. The bloat Mr Jd22292 is adding is just as bad. Who gives a toss how many people subscribe to his YouTube channel? Does he have Twitter? Why not add his followers? Let's do it for everyone in that case? From the first line of the lead we can tell he is a stand-up comedian, author, YouTube personality and maths communicator. Why don't we, seeing as we're in the habit of telling those lazy enough to come and rely on "gleaning quick facts" from the idiotbox, disclose how many people, on average, come to comedy gigs? How many people buy his books? What type of mathematical sum he is best at? Why devote a dozen or so fields solely on his YouTube channel? This is nothing but bloat.  Cassianto Talk  07:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, after reading this statement, I am withdrawing this addition. After a double check, it seems apparent that the embedded YouTube infobox is not justified as this person is not notable for the channel, but rather for his contributions to the field. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 07:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What about your OWN accusation? Are you going to apologise for that?  Cassianto Talk  08:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. An apology is due, and please consider this message as my apology. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 16:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it wasn't what I was hoping for, but I shan't labour the point. Apology, of sorts, accepted.  Cassianto Talk  17:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Parker Square
Okay, somebody deleted the article for "Parker Square". I can understand that. Someone linked to this article - that's actually a great idea. But nobody wrote a summary of the Parker Square into this article. That made it moot.

There's actually the source video linked, but it's never mentioned. This is getting ridiculous.

As it's maybe Matt Parkers most well known contribution to math pop-culture, it should be mentioned when talking about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:6C4:1000:0:0:0:110 (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It is just an in-joke so I'm not sure that we should cover it at all. It has no mathematical significance and we don't want to write anything that trivialises his other work by concentrating on this matter. I could be persuaded that it merits a single sentence, if only to explain the redirect, but nothing more than that. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree - there is a paper about Parker Squares over finite fields - see https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.03236 - that sort of shows it is a topic of actual interest. David Malone (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This may have started as "just an in-joke", but it has long been much more than that. Saying that its inclusion "trivialises his other work" is ridiculous. Not only is it the most famous part of his work that found its way into ongoing mathematical research; "trivial" is also a category that is difficult to apply to recreational mathematics, anyway. In what way does it "trivialise" the rest of his work? It should be mentioned alongside "grafting numbers" and "letterwise magic squares" (which are both less notable than the Parker Square). Renerpho (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Associated acts section
Here is listed several people from the Numberphile YouTube channel. However, if we list these, we may as well list everyone on the channel. Basically, my question is: why these people? MathFan23 (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The associated acts listed in the infobox are not there because of Numberphile, but because they have collaborated with Parker. All but Grimes are mentioned in the body of the article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)