User talk:Jakob.scholbach/Archives/2008/September

History
I added some prose to the history article that should give some ideas. Unfortunately I didn't have time to (a) write well or (b) record the sources, so its not suitable for lifting into an FA, just summarizing. There is some incredibly sketchy additional material in html comments as well, but I think too detailed for the "130 years in a paragraph" style of summarizing.

If no one objects, I'm going to let the prose sort of sit for a week so I can internally adjust to it. Once I get a feel for which of it is important and which is garbage (apparently everything I know about 21st century usage of group theory in analysis is COI/UNDUE), I'll find reasonable sources and reasonable phrasing.

In the meantime, the works I used were mostly collected works and math reviews. I tried to do a math review search for anything recent to get a feel for how much weight a topic deserved. Most opinion statements are from these two types of sources, so most are WP:PEACOCK problems (a reviewer or essayist is not likely to comment on something they don't feel strongly about). I figured it was more important to give you raw material or an outline rather than anything "good".

Let me know if any statements look particularly enticing for the FA, yet egregiously under-sourced and I can probably fix those first. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Jack, for this and for your promising work on history of group theory (which I had not noticed yet). Now that I think about it, it seems to me that a good article on this is even more difficult than one on group theory itself.
 * As for the FAC of groups: it is obviously an infeasible task to give credit to all names/schools and so on in a couple of short paragraphs. I tried to get a reasonable overview as I could extract it from the three books you mentioned and some other sources. If you want to help out with the FAC, you would help most by having a look at Group_(mathematics) and telling me whether I have written something completely off the track. I'm willing to help out with the history article, but frankly, besides my complete lack of serious knowledge in this area, I'm also getting exhausted by the FAC, and slightly by the whole topic, too. So, I need some time.
 * Lastly: I would not worry too much about COI. It is fairly obvious that a well-written, even if slanted, essay on both history of gp.th. and gp.th. itself is better than a half-baked and sober article written by somebody who has little insight. (One thing I noticed in the history article draft is the absence of computational group theory). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooo, I like it actually! It is sort of random in what is included or not, but it does a very good job of saying "there is a lot to groups, both people and topics, and here is a partial list of some interesting parts".  I think this answers the original concern you asked me about very well!  130 years in a paragraph-and-a-half; I am amazed. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. You know some German, right? We say: "Ein blindes Huhn findet auch mal ein Korn." Perhaps I should then resort to writing stubs in the future ;) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Group (mathematics)
Hi Jacob: The very strong connection of symmetry to such things as conservation laws and phase transitions and Goldstone bosons deserves a mention in here somehow. Somebody brought up the Jahn-Teller effect earlier, so a brief extension of these remarks seemed appropriate to me. I don't think it is necessary for everything in an article to be self-explanatory: a strength of Wiki is that it leads the reader to related topics that may prove important to the reader's interest, even though they are not aware of these topics when they begin reading.

Perhaps one of the other Group Theory or Symmetry pages is more appropriate and a link could be provided? The best thing would be a new page on symmetry, groups, phase transitions etc., but I'm not up to that just now. Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What about molecular symmetry? Seriously, being concise and short on secondary topics is crucial. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Molecular symmetry does not cover conservation laws, nor crystalline solids, nor particle physics. Individual citations in all these articles does not provide the generality of an umbrella reference in Group (mathematics). Brews ohare (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm. I think the question is not which page does already cover things similar to your stuff, but the question is : where does it belong to (in this or greater detail)? I'm fairly certain, that groups is not really the right place, perhaps symmetry in physics. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Zeteo feature request
Does Zeteo currently support exporting citations from Citation to BiBTeX format? If not, that seems like something that should be relatively easy to do, and quite useful as a companion to Wikipedia readers as well as editors. Cheers, siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 16:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, this feature is currently not implemented. But, how would that help Wikipedia editors? I'm currently pretty busy with the groups FAC and other off-WP-stuff, so I can not promise to implement something like this. Actually I had even more fancy plans with the zeteo engine, namely importing all WP citation and related templates. To do this well, I have to separate authors with the same name, but effectively not the same person. I had already figured a nice (and hopefully functioning) way of doing this stuff pretty automatically, but am stuck in both the mass of data and the details of programming.
 * If you want, though, we can somehow share the burden of programming (related to your request or in general). In general, I guess the potential for such a well-working engine is huge, given the number of unreferenced articles, and the ease of a gadget like this (see the group (math) article for an example where I used this). It could also be useful for non-WP purposes, such as your request. On the other hand I have little feedback and also little time. So, perhaps we could do something together? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can have a look. Is the code available to the public?  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 12:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not yet. If you want, I can email you. Please contact me by email. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Successful FAC
I see all your hard work on Group (mathematics) has resulted in a successful FAC. Well done ! Gandalf61 (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, also for helping out in the FAC process. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks for your tireless efforts! JackSchmidt (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's rather my pleasure to thank you for kindly sharing your expertise. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The TFA nom that replaced mine looks like it may actually have -1 points. I recommend placing your thing now. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations for the successful FAC! It was a pleasure to notice the result after a few day of being away. Stca74 (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, a pleasure for me too :) I think your idea of giving higher priority to morphisms is the right way of writing articles and doing math in general. I'm now working on vector space, I won't make the same mistakes there again. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review
Thanks for your kind words and for doing a peer review - hope you find more you are interested in and congreats on the new FA, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Meshuggah peer review
Thank you for your great comments on the Peer review/Meshuggah/archive2. I tried to fix most of the things you mentioned and I have some questions to you over there. I hope that / appreciate if you will have a look on them. Cheers--  LYKANTROP    ✉  21:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. I just answered your comments in the review. Will you answer please? :) --  LYKANTROP    ✉  20:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do what I can, but I am not sure if I can invest so much time into it. Thanks that you just spontaneously started your comments. I really appreciate that I had the possibility to see a view of someone, who does not know much about that kind of topic. This actually upgrades the quality of the article. So thank you very much for your time and cheers! :) --  LYKANTROP    ✉  22:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

cannot access my watchlist
I cannot view my watchlist anymore. The browser says there is a cyclic link on that page. What can I do about this? Thanks Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now, there were some technical problems. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 15:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)