Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Group (mathematics)

Regarding sandwiching
Criterion 2 aside, sandwiching, in my eyes, looks awkward and, subsequently, is a disruption to the flow of the prose. Additionally, as someone who often reads Wikipedia on an iPhone, I find sandwiching more so disruptive on small screens. My experiences aside, I don't think this is a deal breaker and is certainly not something that would warrant holding up and otherwise fine article. I do, however, believe that alternative solutions may be possible (see right). Does that multiple image template setup seem reasonable (it can be done vertically, as well)? Эlcobbola talk 17:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer vertically! Randomblue (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dab issue
Discussion could be moved from FAC to here, since the FAC is already so long. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note pls review the dab finder at the top of this page; there are three dab links that need repair. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This point was already raised above by Randomblue. As it is, the dab pages provide in these three cases the page we need. For example Janko group is a dab for the four Janko groups, but we don't want to point to either of the four, but to the general class. In this case it's better to link to the dab page instead of not linking, right? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Janko group page, as it currently stands, is no longer a dab page; it's trying to be an article and includes many elements that don't belong on dab pages (see WP:MOSDAB), which is because we probably need the article more than a dab page. In the other two cases, by linking to a dab page, we're asking the reader to sort out which definition is intended, an unnecessary burden. We shouldn't point readers to dab pages, although I can't find a specific guideline at the moment.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the Janko situation myself. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed the other two. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And in the meantime, the Janko dab pages have been undone again. Can you all get clear on the difference between a dab page and an article? I found three dab pages already existed (!!!), changed Janko group to an article, and redirected the second dab page (Janko group (disambiguation)) to the third dab page at Janko.  Now, a dab page is redirected to an article page, again. Pls see WP:MOSDAB on how to sort all this out; at any rate, this article no longer has any dabs, so we're settled here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And, now the Janko group article is gone, returned to a dab page, the dab is back in this article, and there are three Janko dabs, so we're not settled here; can you sort this with User talk:Ozob? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, this is what happened:
 * Previously Janko group was both an article and a dab page, which violates the MoS.
 * I saw that Template:Group navbox intended to point to all of the Janko groups, not to any particular one.
 * I created Janko group (disambiguation), a redirect to Janko group, and change the group navbox to point to the dab page per WP:DAB.
 * User:SandyGeorgia made Janko group into an article so that it was MoS compliant.
 * User:SandyGeorgia also changed Template:Group navbox so that it pointed to Janko group.
 * I changed Janko group into a dab page since that seems to me to be the only reasonable content one could have on that page.
 * User:SandyGeorgia added a cleanup template to Janko group, citing MoS and saying that now it's a mix of article and dab again.
 * User:JackSchmidt has tightened Janko group. If it was not MoS compliant before, it should be now. Ozob (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Things that need to be resolved seem to be:
 * Is the current revision of Janko group MoS-compliant? I disagree that it attempts to be an article.
 * What should be done about Template:Group navbox? Is it MoS compliant to point to a disambiguation page here? If not, the best solution is probably to list all four Janko groups, since unlike the Conway groups, Mathieu groups, etc., they have nothing in common, so Janko group can never have actual content.
 * For the moment I'm going to step back and let others try to resolve this. User:SandyGeorgia and I have been working at cross-purposes, and rather than have us annoy each other I think it's best for me to stay away for the moment. Ozob (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The only issue here is that we still have this article pointing to a dab page; what was wrong with the Janko group article that JackSchmidt had created? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)