User talk:JackSchmidt/Archives/2009/09

Permutation Group notation
I agree 'abhorrent' should have been reverted. Including an example source for the nonstandard notation, however, is appropriate. 70.144.163.146 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be mentioned Artin's notation is nonstandard. 68.221.113.254 (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "His" notation is quite standard. See for instance most textbooks on group theory. The notation used in the enwiki article is generally reserved for introductory textbooks in algebra (and with an american bias).  Since wikipedia has a large audience in the (american) student of introductory algebra crowd, we use this notation, even though it is less commonly used by group theorists. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the info. RobHar (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

List of snowclones
What are your plans for User:JackSchmidt/List of snowclones? Nobody has touched the page in more than a year and the content on the page, while problematic in some ways, is hidden.

I would like to see ongoing work on this page starting with the last version which is now one-link down in the history. Ultimately, I think that a better home for this might be found in another wiki. In any case, I don't want the awesome content of the article to be buried, and essentially uneditable, as is currently the case. I see a few options. One is to just revert the last edit to the page and leave this in your user space. Another would be to move the page to my user space where I've got a series of other lists in similar situations that are looking for homes. I'd be happy to mark it accordingly in either case. Let me know! — m a k o ๛  20:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The plan is to start fresh, and include only those snowclones which are called such (or a clearly recognized synonym) by a reliable source. The history of the article has lots of good material that was deleted or damaged by the huge number of new editors adding catch phrases and bumper stickers, and then the big cleans of unsourced additions.  Since that plan will require several hours in the library just to make a halfway decent start class list (hours which I don't have in the foreseeable future), it may be that it is not a very good plan.  I think one should revert more than just the last edit, but I misplaced my notes on which versions were particularly dense with good examples and particularly free from random cruft.  I am happy if you want to move it to your userspace, and bring it into line.  I think you should be very careful about just reverting the last edit, as some of the content on it probably violates (strictly enforced) policy.  However, I think within the last few hundred edits there was a fairly respectable version that was just a typical wikipedia article: far from perfect, but worth working on.  JackSchmidt (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)