Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2024 January 1

= January 1 =

What is the best way to reference table which is (arguably) too detailed for the main article?
I created a table with functions and information about whether they are integrable or not (in the sense of Riemann, improper Riemann, Lebesgue and Henstock-Kurzweil) and gave a short reason why.

I think this table would be helpful in the Henstock-Kurzweil page as a link to "Further Readings", not a part of the article, because adding such a big table to the main article is not advised (?).

Can I just add to the H-K integral page as link i to a subpage of my userpage (like " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CaptchaSamurai/table ") or should I do something else?

Thanks for help! CaptchaSamurai (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * We have many Comparison of ... articles, such as Comparison of audio coding formats, Comparison of programming paradigms and Comparison of topologies. Many of these are in a similar tabular form. So one possibility is to name the article "Comparison of integrability criteria" – I think that what you are comparing is more Riemann, Lebesque and Henstock–Kurzweil integrability than the example functions exhibiting the differences. You can then list it in a See also section. It would be more in line with this new name, though, if the roles of rows and columns are reversed, which may be typographically difficult with a limited page width. An issue is also that future editors may want to expand the set of types of integrals included in the comparison; Category:Definitions of mathematical integration has 28 members, some of which may be plausible candidates for inclusion. --Lambiam 18:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For future reference, this question should probably be asked at WT:WPM. --RDBury (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lambiam, thank you! @RDBury, noted. I agree and thanks for kindly pointing out my mistake :). CaptchaSamurai (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: we have a disambiguation page Integrability. It could potentially be turned into a real article. In such an article, a comparison table would not be "too detailed". --Lambiam 13:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lambiam Agree, I think I'll do this.
 * Re: problematic table width: I am also thinking about con clickable Euler diagram in .svg like this one. CaptchaSamurai (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * After @Lambiam comments (and a privite convo with @Attomir) I converge to: (1) Changing the name of the table to "Comparison of integrability criteria". (2) Moving explanations to footnotes using NoteTag to improve readability. (3) Color-coding "yes" & "no". (4) Swapping rows ↔ columns.
 * Thanks for all suggestions! CaptchaSamurai (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My 2c are that a table is probably not a good way to collect the information you've put into it for purposes of an encyclopedia article, but that prose paragraphs conveying the same information (especially to the extent cited to RS like Counterexamples in Analysis) could be useful in possibly many articles on different kinds of integrals. --JBL (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)