User talk:Zero sharp/Archive 20080325

Sandhinirmocana Sutra
Hey, as you were the only person in the last year or so to take some sort of action on the Samdhinirmocanasutra page, I thought I'd send you a heads up that I created a new article at Sandhinirmocana Sutra, and tried to incorporate some of the old material. My take on the old page was that it was a bit overrun with technical terms, and depicted a single piece of the sutra's teachings as the most important part, largely ignoring the rest- as a result, not much of the old page survives in the new one. Please take a look and move things around if you think that there were worthwhile bits of the old article that got lost in the process. --Clay Collier 10:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Hi! Thanks for your note. "Dharmic religions", while a useful phrase, turns out to have absolutely no scholarly references at all; we might actually have to nominate the article for AfD. You can check that for yourself using google scholar, for example:. Of the five results, of course, a couple aren't even actual scholarly references. Given that, and following a discussion at the Hinduism-related topics noticeboard, I thought we had better remove most of the references at least, replacing the neologism with a more acceptable phrase, in case the article went to AfD. If you feel 'religions of Indian origin; is inappropriate, please do let me know. Hornplease 23:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

TeX detail
It's rather odd to write \mathrm{sup} rather than just \sup in TeX. The latter not only prevents italicization, but also in some cases provides proper spacing. Note the difference:
 * $$ \mathrm{sup} A\, $$
 * $$ \sup A \, $$
 * $$ \sup A \, $$
 * $$ \sup A \, $$

Michael Hardy 05:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinking "mathematical"
Hi 0#,

actually I didn't notice that that was an exact revert; I thought you'd done something else and just gotten overexuberant with the wikilinking as a side effect.

I don't actually understand your edit summary. For me, the point of not wikilinking "mathematical" in the phrase "in the mathematical discipline of foo" is that it takes you from too specific an article, to too general of one. I don't think articles should link much more than one step more general than themselves; it seems kind of pointless to me. If you're looking at that article you're not looking for a general article on mathematics. However you might conceivably be interested in a general article on set theory. --Trovatore 02:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary
Thanks for the reminder to use the edit summary. I was aware of the problem, and about an hour ago I had found by accident (and immediately activated) "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in the Preferences. So I hope it will improve now. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)