JonRichfield (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
JonRichfield (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
:I've protected the page, until consensus is achieved here. [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|☎]] 19:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC) |
:I've protected the page, until consensus is achieved here. [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|☎]] 19:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Remove/keep out'''. See my more detailed comments at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 24]] for why. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Remove/keep out'''. See my more detailed comments at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 24]] for why. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep or improve the template or its form or content in context''' Having checked the "Templates for discussion" log, I consider the objections to templates and denial of their value to users to be mistaken, much like the rwars against links and technical terms in article titles. It is quite possible to use them constructively, and as is true for any useful tool, to misapply them uselessly or harmfully or pointlessly. The fact that certain classes of user, typically professionals or others advanced in the field, might consider them as useless, redundant, misleading, or aesthetically displeasing, is beside the point. Those are not the only users. Many readers (most, I think) are either ill-equipped to go beyond factoids, or uninterested; even a professional might well look up a date or a name for constructive purposes. If anyone has objections, the appropriate course is to improve the template, not gratify a point of personal distaste. [[User:JonRichfield|JonRichfield]] ([[User talk:JonRichfield|talk]]) 18:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
===Comment on "consensus first", moved out of the above discussion=== |
===Comment on "consensus first", moved out of the above discussion=== |
Revision as of 18:42, 26 March 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
|
|
||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Plain English...
The following sentence...
- "In plain English, these papers by Frey, Serre and Ribet showed that if the Modularity Theorem could be proven for at least the semi-stable class of elliptic curves, a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem would also follow automatically".
...is a joke right??? Or is there some new meaning of "plain English" that I am unfamiliar with? FillsHerTease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Plain English" refers to the sentence you have quoted, not to the papers of Frey, Serre, and Ribet. Do you find this sentence difficult to understand, in broad outline? Do you have any suggestions for how it might be rewritten to be easier to understand? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- In plain English, agreed. "In plain English" in context in the article, adds nothing to the sense, and nothing to help the reader; it is not even elegant temporisation, but slovenly and functionless padding. If someone objected to something like that in my writing, I would remove it with apologies — and with thanks. JonRichfield (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Inconsistency
The article on Fermat's Last theorem does not mention any proof by Gauss of the case in which n=3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.102.132 (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for Gauss having proved this? Paul August ☎ 14:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article on Gauss says that he proved the case in which n=3. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_Gauss#Career_and_achievements .
"In ancient times"
@JamesBWatson: your recent edit restores a situation in which two sentences in close proximity begin with the phrase "In ancient times". This is just poor writing. I would be happy to discuss other ways to preserve that sense, if you think it's important, although personally I think that the more detailed discussion of the history three sentences later should be sufficient. (Also your edit is ungrammatical, but that's easy to fix.) --JBL (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that the wording was not ideal, but I don't think that justifies removing the statement altogether. The mention three sentences later is about finding sets of numbers which satisfy the equation, and does not in any way indicate a knowledge of its relation to right angled triangles. I have removed the words "in ancient times" to which you object, but left in a past tense, which I think implicitly suggests that the statement refers to the "ancient times" referred to in an earlier sentence, unlike the present tense version that you posted. I would prefer the connection to be more explicit, but I don't think it's important enough to spend a lot of effort trying to find perfect wording. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Relevant deletion discussion
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction (2nd nomination). XOR'easter (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks to your good works, that article seems likely to be kept. And it serves naturally as the main article for the "In popular culture" section here. Since that article is, in essence, a list, one question is how to summarize it here. I propose something like the following:
==In popular culture==
Fermat's Last Theorem has attracted notice in numerous cultural works, including in movies, theater, novels, and on television; particularly in science fiction. In one example, [put an abbreviated form of the Star Trek discussion here??]. For further examples, see Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction.
- The goal is to give a sense that there are many examples, while reserving detailed discussion for the other article and making it clear that that's where one should go to find more. What do others think? --JBL (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think the first sentence has a lot of words but doesn't really say much. I think it's also more conventional to just link the "in fiction" article once, in the "Main" hatnote—repeating it is overkill. How about:
- Fermat's Last Theorem is alluded to in many cultural works. One example is the equation , which is only correct to ten significant figures, and appears in The Simpsons episode "The Wizard of Evergreen Terrace". Another is Star Trek episode "The Royale", where Captain Jean-Luc Picard laments that the theorem is still unsolved.
- This is essentially what we have already, but is a bit shorter, and has the first sentence to briefly establish context. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not too fond of the term "cultural works". How about "works of fiction" instead? Otherwise, that sounds fine to me. XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Explaining a couple choices I made in the draft above:
- @Bilorv: I don't care so much about the first sentence (I do think those words say something, but I know people have different writing styles and a terser approach is fine) but your subsequent sentences do something I was explicitly trying to avoid: they give two examples, stripped to the level of "here is a thing that exists." I think it would be much preferable to be really clear about where a reader can find multiple examples, and also provide enough details about one single example so that it is actually an interesting description.
- @XOR'easter: the other article includes at least one example (a piece of music) that is not fiction. (I would have said that musical theater was also not fiction, although our article fiction disagrees with me.) And the section of this article is called "In popular culture". But, I don't feel strongly about this, either, if you think there's a good reason to use "fiction" instead. --JBL (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- A terser approach is not my style of writing, but a conscious choice per WP:UNDUE. This is a small aspect of a very significant topic. Multiple sentences for any example would be giving that example undue weight. "Readers would find it interesting" is not a reason to include it, unfortunately. It is standard practice to establish that the reader can learn more about the topic using {{Main}} instead of mentioning it in prose. In fact, I think that "for further examples, see..." may even be a violation of WP:SELFREF). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- The idea that Wikipedia policies mandate that in this situation we write one sentence about two examples from a list instead of two sentences about one example is preposterous, to the extent that it is hard to know how to engage with it. If you are able/willing to discuss the actual merits of writing the sentences that describe examples one way or the other, that might be worthwhile. --JBL (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Of course I'm willing to engage in discussion, but I can't see what reaction you expect from describing my proposal as preposterous. The example I wrote used enough detail for a reader to understand what the show's allusion was about and no more. It focused equally on the most important examples from the list, the way I saw it. Would you like to suggest alternate text that you would prefer? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your proposal is not preposterous, and I did not describe it as such. (What is preposterous is the idea that any of the policies you mentioned are useful for making the choice between two or three sentences devoted to one example versus on sentence devoted to each of two or three examples.) My objection to your proposal is the following: in squeezing the two examples down to a single sentence, we end up with a (correctly referenced and supported) statement that twice FLT was mentioned on TV, but no sense at all of the significance of these mention, or why they're interesting. This is also the reason I chose Star Trek rather than the Simpsons: the two Simpsons uses are basically just throwaway jokes that don't relate to the plot or storyline, and no moral is drawn from them. The first two Star Trek sentences of the current section (including the quote, but not the parenthetical) do a much better job of showing FLT actually playing a role in a fictional work, and I would prefer to keep them over a Simpsons mention. --JBL (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- References on The Simpsons have been studied in books. The source for this particular joke is a book which discusses FLT and The Simpsons for several pages, giving it significant weight. I can't see how exactly we would explain the significance of the mentions without delving into original research; I don't believe that the current article explains significance any further (it's just more plot detail). I think we have reached an impasse, because I consider what I wrote to be both interesting and meaningful and you do not. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your proposal is not preposterous, and I did not describe it as such. (What is preposterous is the idea that any of the policies you mentioned are useful for making the choice between two or three sentences devoted to one example versus on sentence devoted to each of two or three examples.) My objection to your proposal is the following: in squeezing the two examples down to a single sentence, we end up with a (correctly referenced and supported) statement that twice FLT was mentioned on TV, but no sense at all of the significance of these mention, or why they're interesting. This is also the reason I chose Star Trek rather than the Simpsons: the two Simpsons uses are basically just throwaway jokes that don't relate to the plot or storyline, and no moral is drawn from them. The first two Star Trek sentences of the current section (including the quote, but not the parenthetical) do a much better job of showing FLT actually playing a role in a fictional work, and I would prefer to keep them over a Simpsons mention. --JBL (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Of course I'm willing to engage in discussion, but I can't see what reaction you expect from describing my proposal as preposterous. The example I wrote used enough detail for a reader to understand what the show's allusion was about and no more. It focused equally on the most important examples from the list, the way I saw it. Would you like to suggest alternate text that you would prefer? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- The idea that Wikipedia policies mandate that in this situation we write one sentence about two examples from a list instead of two sentences about one example is preposterous, to the extent that it is hard to know how to engage with it. If you are able/willing to discuss the actual merits of writing the sentences that describe examples one way or the other, that might be worthwhile. --JBL (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- A terser approach is not my style of writing, but a conscious choice per WP:UNDUE. This is a small aspect of a very significant topic. Multiple sentences for any example would be giving that example undue weight. "Readers would find it interesting" is not a reason to include it, unfortunately. It is standard practice to establish that the reader can learn more about the topic using {{Main}} instead of mentioning it in prose. In fact, I think that "for further examples, see..." may even be a violation of WP:SELFREF). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not too fond of the term "cultural works". How about "works of fiction" instead? Otherwise, that sounds fine to me. XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think the first sentence has a lot of words but doesn't really say much. I think it's also more conventional to just link the "in fiction" article once, in the "Main" hatnote—repeating it is overkill. How about:
- Granted that there is a whole other article on the topic, why do we need anything more in this article than a link to it from "See also"? Anything more than that is either redundant duplication of content in the other article or else content in this one that should be in that one and not here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Because that's how summary style works. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia:Summary style describes how to summarise content of an article on a subtopic of the main topic, but that comes into effect only if the subsidiary article is a subtopic of the main topic. In this case, although it is clearly related, it is not a subtopic: it is not about the theorem. An analogous case is Julius Caesar, which is an article about the ancient Roman soldier and politician of that name. Julius Caesar (play), on the other hand, is not about that person, and so it does not have a summary in the article Julius Caesar. There are many other examples following the same principle: a summary section belongs in a main article on a topic if the subsidiary article is about an aspect of the topic of the main article. In this case that means that a summary section would be suitable for a secondary article if it were about an aspect of the mathematical theorem known as "Fermat's Last Theorem", but the article Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction isn't, just as the article Julius Caesar (play) isn't about the real person who is the topic of Julius Caesar. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I accept that it's an edge case but I think it is a subtopic: it is about an aspect of the theorem; specifically, a part of its legacy. And the legacy of subjects is something we include in that subject's page. But I don't see WP:SUMMARY defining what a "subtopic" is; it's more about "is this a section which would normally go in this article, but is too long". Hence we get splits for things like sequels to a movie—the sequel was clearly never part of the original movie but WP:SUMMARY applies nonetheless. The nutshell template describes the splitting process which is precisely what happened to this article in 2007 in this edit. So it seems to me like WP:SUMMARY is a pretty good fit here. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia:Summary style describes how to summarise content of an article on a subtopic of the main topic, but that comes into effect only if the subsidiary article is a subtopic of the main topic. In this case, although it is clearly related, it is not a subtopic: it is not about the theorem. An analogous case is Julius Caesar, which is an article about the ancient Roman soldier and politician of that name. Julius Caesar (play), on the other hand, is not about that person, and so it does not have a summary in the article Julius Caesar. There are many other examples following the same principle: a summary section belongs in a main article on a topic if the subsidiary article is about an aspect of the topic of the main article. In this case that means that a summary section would be suitable for a secondary article if it were about an aspect of the mathematical theorem known as "Fermat's Last Theorem", but the article Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction isn't, just as the article Julius Caesar (play) isn't about the real person who is the topic of Julius Caesar. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Because that's how summary style works. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone who has not participated in this discussion have any comments? We seem to have reached a stalemate where none of us are happy with the current contents of the section, but no replacement has consensus. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Should we perhaps vote on what to do: I have created a sub-section. PJTraill (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- No, this is premature, and also not the right way to go about it (which would be to open an RfC). --JBL (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would not know, I am inclined to leave you to discuss further. But maybe it would help to make a list of the points at issue and discuss them one by one. For me there are at least these points (+ my opinions): should section exist (yes!)? how many examples (2!)? how much detail in examples (terse)? how many links to main (1)? What in introductory sentence (not what p~ c~ means, do say in what role FLT appears: represent v. diff problem, peg for in-jokes, &c?)? PJTraill (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Let me be precise about why it is not necessary: obviously I have a strong view about what would make a good example, but if three other people say "we disagree, the single-sentence snippets get the point across and 2 examples is better than 1," the right thing to do would be for someone to edit the article in accordance with that consensus (that happens to have me not part of the majority view). I am not entirely convinced we have reached that point yet, but also it is not necessary to have a full RFC to get there. --JBL (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would not know, I am inclined to leave you to discuss further. But maybe it would help to make a list of the points at issue and discuss them one by one. For me there are at least these points (+ my opinions): should section exist (yes!)? how many examples (2!)? how much detail in examples (terse)? how many links to main (1)? What in introductory sentence (not what p~ c~ means, do say in what role FLT appears: represent v. diff problem, peg for in-jokes, &c?)? PJTraill (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- No, this is premature, and also not the right way to go about it (which would be to open an RfC). --JBL (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Voting
Anybody who cares (contributors and debaters: @XOR'easter, Gandalf61, Gts-tg, Loraof, , Grammarian3.14159265359?), please vote for one of (or any further proposals):
- Keep – the current version as of 2018-10-08.
- Remove – remove the section and only refer in See also , as suggested by @JamesBWatson.
- New text 1 – in first post of the section by @Joel B. Lewis:
- Fermat's Last Theorem has attracted notice in numerous cultural works, including in movies, theater, novels, and on television; particularly in science fiction. In one example, [put an abbreviated form of the Star Trek discussion here??]. For further examples, see Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction.
- New text 2 – as per first reaction to JBL by @Bilorv:
- Fermat's Last Theorem is alluded to in many cultural works. One example is the equation , which is only correct to ten significant figures, and appears in The Simpsons episode "The Wizard of Evergreen Terrace". Another is Star Trek episode "The Royale", where Captain Jean-Luc Picard laments that the theorem is still unsolved.
- PJTraill (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC), updated PJTraill (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- @PJTraill: tagging votes with user's names is literally "ad hominem", and semantically near. Could you, please, revise the suggested tags?
- @Purgy Purgatorio: No harm meant: I do not see the tags as an attack on or invitation to attack or discuss anyone’s character as a distraction from the merits of their arguments. But since you feel that way I have changed them; unfortunately I could not think of meaningful names.
Votes:
- New text 2 gets my vote. (Maybe not perfect but good enough, no point listing types of medium or repeating the link, two examples is about right.) PJTraill (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- I suppose it's obvious that new text 2 is my preferred version, but next text 1 would be my second choice. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- New text 1, perhaps with some tweaks and failing that, Removal. A problem with the alternative is that in calling a non-equation an "equation", confusion is certainly introduced. A much longer explanation would be needed to set this straight and I do not see any advantage in spending more time on this coincidental curiosity. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I feel "which is only correct to ten significant figures" clarifies it, though I concede "equation" was a bad blunder of a word choice. Would "alleged equality" or "approximation" not suffice? There's definitely a concise rewording to be found if this is your only concern. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'd rather prefer a closing sentence in the lead, linking to the "fiction", just stating the popular occurrences without any examples and without a separate paragraph. But I don't really care. BTW, getting 10 digits of a 50-digit integer correct, might impress Homer, but certainly not Lisa, thinking of gravitational waves. Purgy (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- "Assertion" or "claim" would do the job. PJTraill (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
dates wrong
In this article they state that the date of Arithmetica was 1670, did they mean 1570, because further in the article says Fermat penned it in 1637. So someone has their dates wrong. 2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:B4 (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Archimedes Plutonium, 19SEP2018
- You've misread the article. Diophantus wrote the Arithmetica an ancient work (c. 3rd century BC). In 1637 Fermat wrote his note in the margin of a 1621 edition of Arithmetica. A later 1670 edition of Arithmetica included Fermat's commentary. Paul August ☎ 09:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Upload of picture?
Isaac Newton Institute website has a photo when Andrew Wiles prove last theorem. I would like to upload it on Wikimedia, but I don't know if it is common creative license. http://www.newton.ac.uk/event/lfnw01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 小小地松鼠 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- The default answer for pictures you found on the internet with no explicit declaration of a CC license is no. Asking here won't change that. You can try tracking down who actually owns the copyright on the photo (most likely either the photographer or the organization that hired the photographer), somehow persuade them to release it, and get them to communicate their explicit permission through WP:OTRS, but without that you can't upload it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- You could start by writing to one of the addresses on their contact page, http://www.newton.ac.uk/contact. General Enquiries: Telephone: +44 (0)1223 335999 / Fax: +44(0)1223 330508 / Email: info@newton.ac.uk. Of course they may refer you to someone else, but your chances must be reasonable, given that Andre Wiles announced his proof at their institute. PJTraill (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement
@Purgy Purgatorio: I think that the inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement here would be justified.
- There are connections between Fermat's Last Theorem and other major modern conjectures & theorems which are not included within the article text (except for the modularity theorem).
- Even if the connections were included, they would not be mentioned until far down the article due to the size of the article.
- This is one of the most famous theorems of the modern era so I imagine such connections would be of interest to a substantial portion of the audience.
- The infobox does not take up significant real estate on the right side of the page, where the picture and caption are now, due to the size of the lead and TOC.
To see what it would look like, the previous version is here. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Remove: I won't invest much arguing here, as long as I can hope that the whole template gets deleted. Purgy (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Restore the infobox, which provides a useful summary of key points about the page's topic. The removal of the template with an edit summary of "I am firmly convicted that there should be established consensus on implementing an infobox here, BEFORE doing so)" is particularly troubling, because policy requires no such step. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Restore the infobox which makes the article much more accessible to the occasional reader unfamiliar with the topic. Agree with Andy that there's no justification to request a discussion before an edit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support inclusion of infobox. The infobox provides an at-a-glance summary of key information in this article for readers, and provides structured data suitable for use by third-party tools. The microformats emitted include 'vcard' and 'image', although others could be added. --RexxS (talk) 1:02 pm, 25 February 2019, Monday (13 days ago) (UTC−5)
- Remove/Keep out. I find the contents of the infobox itself problematical. Fermat did not "conjecture" it, he made a marginal note to himself claiming to have proven it, but never made the statement or conjecture in public (and given that he explicitly provided a proof for n=4 later in his lafe, there is good reason to think he recognized a problem with his original argument). The date is likewise suspect, since we don't know exactly when he made the annotation. The "Implied by" can hardly be exhaustive, but will give the false impression that it is, as will "generalizations". In short, I find the contents of the infobox to be misleading and open to controversy. Magidin (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Conjecture: "a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved". Of course Fermat made a conjecture; it's an abuse of the English language to pretend otherwise, regardless of your OR about what he thought.
- Approximate dates are perfectly acceptable. The article text currently reads
"This theorem was first conjectured by Pierre de Fermat in 1637"
, so it's good enough for the lead, but according to you, it's not good enough for an infobox. - The documentation for the infobox shows
There's no requirement for an exhaustive list, and that is common in infoboxes where only the key points should be included. There's no evidence that readers will assume that the contents are exhaustive. Disagreement with what the contents of a field should be is a very weak argument for removing an infobox.implied by
Statement(s) that imply the current one. - You have provided no evidence that the infobox you object to is any more misleading than the lead or the body text. That's no argument at all against an infobox. --RexxS (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- First: "Conjecture", in this context is a term of art. Looking it up in Webster fails to acknowledge that. Not every unproven/undisproven proposition is considered a conjecture. It's actually an abuse of the term of art to pretend that it is, regardless of you looking the word up in an inappropriate source. Second, while the statement (prior to its proof) eventually came to be understood as a conjecture, this is distinct from saying that Fermat conjectured it. Again, the Mordell Conjecture was indeed a conjecture in the technical sense, and Mordell very specifically said he had not conjectured it (in the technical sense). Saying Fermat conjectured it elides context, trivializes a complex issue, and creates the potential for false impressions. Compare to Fermat's actual conjecture that Fermat numbers were all primes. I object that a list of "Implied by" would give the impression of exhaustiveness; if there is no evidence readers would assume it is complete, there is also no evidence that readers would not assume it is exhaustive. And given that it is argued that the infobox is particularly for non-experts, I would think that it is more likely to create that impression than not. So really, what we have, is my opinion versus yours, not my opinion versus your expression of objective fact. My "OR about what [Fermat] thought" is actually a repetition of what is in the text of the article: "It is not known whether Fermat had actually found a valid proof for all exponents n, but it appears unlikely." etc. Infoboxes don't provide context, and give the appearance of finality, so they need to be much more careful than text in the article. They trivialize, oversimplify, and emphasize what is usually least important about the subject. Please do not confuse "I do not agree" or "I do not consider those arguments strong/valid" with "You have provided no arguments" or "you have provided no evidence". I find David Eppstein's arguments much better distil my general feelings about the infobox both in general and in specific. Magidin (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- In this case the issue is not that “conjecture” is a term of art, but that the embarrassing ‘’argumentum ad dictionary‘’ used the definition of the noun form when the objection is to the use of the verb. (I do not disagree about it being a term of art.) The point about the lead is not dumb, though. —JBL (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding the point of exhaustiveness, I don't think that readers would assume exhaustiveness here, just as one wouldn't for fields such as "Known for", "Awards", "Doctoral students", or others used in infoboxes elsewhere. Regarding the subtleties in whether someone "conjectured" something or not, this is something that can be decided by consensus on a case-by-case basis for more controversial instances. The majority (or at the very least, a substantial portion) of theorems and conjectures are not so controversial as to claims of whether the author truly conjectured something. But of course, this talk page should really focus on this particular instance of the infobox rather than the infobox in general (which it seems to have become to a good degree). If it's good enough to be stated in the lead and article, it should be so for the infobox as well. Subtleties are still discussed in the article and the infobox is never intended nor assumed to have a strict finality just as the lead is not. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Joel B. Lewis: Did you actually read https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture before commenting? It defines "conjecture verb" as "to make conjectures as to". Of course you have to use the definition of the noun to elucidate the meaning of the verb. Please feel free to explain where your dissenting view is sourced. --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- In this case the issue is not that “conjecture” is a term of art, but that the embarrassing ‘’argumentum ad dictionary‘’ used the definition of the noun form when the objection is to the use of the verb. (I do not disagree about it being a term of art.) The point about the lead is not dumb, though. —JBL (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Magidin: Re https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture. We are writing an encyclopedia for a general audience. It is ludicrous to suggest that Merriam-Webster's dictionary is "an inappropriate source". Of course Fermat made a conjecture by any common understanding of the word. Your objection on grounds that you disagree with that common understanding is worthless. We're not writing the encyclopedia for you. It's also the word used in the lead and I don't see you wanting to delete the lead because it misuses your "term-of-art". --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- An infobox in an article about a mathematical subject would not be using technical terms in a colloquial manner. Nor would it be relevant to quote the definition of a noun to justify a misuse of a verb. We are also not writing this entry for you, and your continued tone of just laying down the law and determining exactly what is worth what or what is worthless shows just more than a bit of hubris, particularly seeing how you apparently cannot tell the difference between a verb and a noun. And that is all for me, because, I find your contributions so far to be misguided and worthless, and since apparently that is more than sufficient to dismiss anything, I guess all your comments are hereby dismissed. Unless, of course, it's just those opinions you don't agree with that can be declared worthless by fiat, or if it is only your royal fiat that counts. I don't feel strongly enough about this to subject myself to the particular brand of "argument" that you apparently prefer. Magidin (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Magidin: I'm going to ask you to keep your discussion civil now. I object to your ad hominem attack on me in reference to my "tone" (whatever that may mean in a textual discussion) and by accusing me of "hubris" and of making a "royal fiat" as well as calling my contributions "misguided and worthless". Those uncivil comments are not allowed as part of discussions on this topic and I'm going to ask you to strike them.
- You called my objections "worthless" and engaged in other comments that I found to be personal, but I guess that was okay. In any case, I have unwatched this page and will not participate in this "discussion", nor do I have any plans to exchange any further messages or comments with you on this or on any topic. Magidin (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Magidin: I'm going to ask you to keep your discussion civil now. I object to your ad hominem attack on me in reference to my "tone" (whatever that may mean in a textual discussion) and by accusing me of "hubris" and of making a "royal fiat" as well as calling my contributions "misguided and worthless". Those uncivil comments are not allowed as part of discussions on this topic and I'm going to ask you to strike them.
Now, to return to the actual debate: An infobox in an article about a mathematical subject is still an infobox in an article for a general audience. I have shown by reference to a very well respected dictionary (Meriam Webster) what a general understanding of the term "conjecture" means. You have yet to provide any source that demonstrates otherwise, beyond your own self. A "conjecture" is "a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved" and "to conjecture" is the act of making a conjecture. Verb and noun don't have different meanings in a mathematical sense. If you claim otherwise, adduce your source.
If you think that it is inappropriate for the infobox to have a field titled "conjectured by", then kindly explain why the lead contains the phrase "This theorem was first conjectured by Pierre de Fermat in 1637"
. It even links to our article on Conjecture and has been present in the article since 11 May 2009. --RexxS (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Include infobox. For goodness' sake, it's a helpful thing to have to be able to get quick facts at a glance and compare against similar articles. Infobox opponents should stop reverting due to "no consensus" and start making concrete, positive arguments against inclusion. Or, you know, accept the infobox and move along. Lagrange613 18:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- I mean an argument against including the infobox, not an argument for changing some of the infobox's current contents. Lagrange613 19:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm saying each and every item on the infobox (except for the title) is incorrect or misleading, so I am arguing against including the infobox. I specifically said I was arguing for excluding the infobox. Perhaps you can stop misrepresenting what I'm saying and doing? Magidin (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- I mean an argument against including the infobox, not an argument for changing some of the infobox's current contents. Lagrange613 19:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Meh: I do not think that mathematical statements, broadly, lend themselves to treatment by infobox. But maybe a handful of prominent examples do. The box itself seems to be done in a relatively unobtrusive way, and the initial choice of contents seem reasonable. But the issues Magidin raises are also legitimate, and it's easy to imagine the "implied by" and "generalizations" (by the way, what is the difference there?) items growing into an unwieldy mess. --JBL (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- But by that logic, any part of the article could grow into an unwieldy mess. That isn't an argument against having an article. We deal with what the contents of any part of the article (including the contents of an infobox) should be, by editorial consensus. Incidentally, we are required to focus on arguments specific to this infobox in this article, not general objections like I do not think that mathematical statements, broadly, lend themselves to treatment by infobox, per ArbCom injunction. --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Joel B. Lewis: For an example of the distinction between "implied by" and "generalizations": The Generalized Poincaré conjecture is a generalization of the Poincaré conjecture as it extends the statement to broader settings. The geometrization conjecture implies the Poincaré conjecture but is not a generalization as it concerns a different kind of problem that has an application to the setting of the Poincaré conjecture. Generalizations of X always imply X, but the converse is not necessarily true! — MarkH21 (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've protected the page, until consensus is achieved here. Paul August ☎ 19:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Remove/keep out. See my more detailed comments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 24 for why. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep or improve the template or its form or content in context Having checked the "Templates for discussion" log, I consider the objections to templates and denial of their value to users to be mistaken, much like the rwars against links and technical terms in article titles. It is quite possible to use them constructively, and as is true for any useful tool, to misapply them uselessly or harmfully or pointlessly. The fact that certain classes of user, typically professionals or others advanced in the field, might consider them as useless, redundant, misleading, or aesthetically displeasing, is beside the point. Those are not the only users. Many readers (most, I think) are either ill-equipped to go beyond factoids, or uninterested; even a professional might well look up a date or a name for constructive purposes. If anyone has objections, the appropriate course is to improve the template, not gratify a point of personal distaste. JonRichfield (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment on "consensus first", moved out of the above discussion
- Comment: "I think there should be consensus first" is isomorphic to "I object and do not believe there is consensus for inclusion", i.e., it is a perfectly reasonable position that either will or will not be borne out by this discussion. Whining about the choice of wording is pointless. --JBL (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- No. There is no requirement for prior consensus in order for any editor to make an edit. Pretending that consensus for inclusion has to be established first is anathemic to to how Wikipedia works. If there is prior consensus not to have an infobox, then requiring discussion to change that consensus is reasonable. It is not reasonable to to insist on prior consensus in the absence of any prior consensus. --RexxS (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- However, once there is disagreement about an important change (and the infobox is an important change), it makes more sense to restore the status quo ante during the discussion, which is what was done here. The editor was free to make the change. Another editor was free to object. And since this resulted in strong opinions, discussion while the status quo ante holds is what makes sense. Nobody is saying "Never make a change unless you discuss it first." Kindly don't pretend that is what is being stated. Magidin (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- That is literally what is being stated: "I am firmly convicted that there should be established consensus on implementing an infobox here, BEFORE doing so". I have seen procedural arguments about whether the infobox should remain pending an outcome, but no actual arguments about why the article shouldn't have the infobox. It's impossible to take the former seriously absent the latter. Lagrange613 18:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's hard to see arguments when one refuses to read them, indeed. I guess it's easier to just say there aren't any, even when that's not true. 19:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- (ec) Magidin responded on my talk page. Bringing it here so we can have a unified conversation:
- First, I did give an argument. In the talk page. So kindly don't pretend I didn't in the edit summary: it's insulting, and it shows that you did not actually bother to check or to listen before trying to lecture. Second, nobody is saying that consensus is needed before any change. Rather, that if a change is seriously contested, as this one clearly is, then it makes sense for the status quo ante to hold while the discussion is taking place. So again, don't misrepresent the argument being made. Magidin (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- My response is that I didn't quote Magidin; I quoted another user's edit summary. Magidin's argument that some of the infobox's contents are wrong is an argument for changing the contents, not for excluding the infobox. Lagrange613 19:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Repeating pointless whining does not make it amount to anything more than pointless whining. Every word wasted on PP's edit summary is pointless whining. Focus on the actual issue. --JBL (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- This is an odd comment to make given how you began this thread. Lagrange613 19:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Since I did not begin the thread, I presume you mean "given [my] first contribution to the thread". Both of my comments have the same point, namely, to push others to stop pointless whining about an unimportant issue of how an edit summary was phrased. Maybe it is fruitless to write "stop talking about X, it's a waste of time", but it is in fact true people should stop whining about the trivial procedural question and focus on the substantive issue. --JBL (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- This is an odd comment to make given how you began this thread. Lagrange613 19:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Repeating pointless whining does not make it amount to anything more than pointless whining. Every word wasted on PP's edit summary is pointless whining. Focus on the actual issue. --JBL (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- <Aside: please be kind to screen readers - MOS:LISTGAP> @Magidin: I have no objection to reversion to the status quo ante when a discussion has commenced. I do object to challenges to an edit based solely on the mistaken premise that a BOLD edit has to have prior consensus. That's not how BRD works. --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- That is literally what is being stated: "I am firmly convicted that there should be established consensus on implementing an infobox here, BEFORE doing so". I have seen procedural arguments about whether the infobox should remain pending an outcome, but no actual arguments about why the article shouldn't have the infobox. It's impossible to take the former seriously absent the latter. Lagrange613 18:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- However, once there is disagreement about an important change (and the infobox is an important change), it makes more sense to restore the status quo ante during the discussion, which is what was done here. The editor was free to make the change. Another editor was free to object. And since this resulted in strong opinions, discussion while the status quo ante holds is what makes sense. Nobody is saying "Never make a change unless you discuss it first." Kindly don't pretend that is what is being stated. Magidin (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- No. There is no requirement for prior consensus in order for any editor to make an edit. Pretending that consensus for inclusion has to be established first is anathemic to to how Wikipedia works. If there is prior consensus not to have an infobox, then requiring discussion to change that consensus is reasonable. It is not reasonable to to insist on prior consensus in the absence of any prior consensus. --RexxS (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Post-TfD closure
Now that the TfD has been closed, I hope that we might be able to reach some consensus on the template's usage on this particular article. Hopefully we can have such a discussion and decision without distractions or drama.
From the above discussion, it seems that while there might not be a clear consensus, there is a slight preference towards inclusion by the involved editors. The specific hotpoints here are whether Fermat actually made the conjecture and the issue of an unwieldy list of implications, generalizations, etc.
- Since the lead explicitly stated that
"This theorem was first conjectured by Pierre de Fermat in 1637"
since 11 May 2009 (without any apparent objections), listing Fermat as the originator seems reasonable to include as a template field. - Since the previous implementation of the template had three notable implications and two generalizations (only one of which is currently in the lead), this does not seem to be an out-of-control list. In this particular case, I also do no think that there exist many conjectures and theorems on Wikipedia that imply FLT.
Thanks in advance for any input and civil discourse :) — MarkH21 (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- No consensus for deletion of the whole template is certainly not the same light as a green light for adding it wholesale to all our articles. I still object, strongly, to its inclusion here, for the same reasons I articulated on the TfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Of course, that's why I restarted this discussion! Nevertheless, I still don't see your argument and you never responded to my refutation of your points. That said, it doesn’t seem like our opinions on this are changing. Barring a number of new voices becoming involved, we may need to consider other content dispute resolution methods? — MarkH21 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @MarkH21: Your options are limited when it comes to resolution of these sort of binary content disputes (either an infobox or not). If you think the debate above has exhausted the issues and is likely to result in a consensus one way or the other when adjudicated by an independent closer, then you could try to find a mutually agreeable administrator with experience of DR to close the debate. I've found User:Worm That Turned, a former Arbitrator, to be very fair-minded and has previously closed infobox disputes as both in favour and against, so he might be willing to help. If there isn't a clear enough consensus above, and you want more voices to be heard, then you should start a RfC here and advertise it to Wikiproject Maths and Wikiproject Infoboxes as the most likely sources of other views. Naturally, notifying other central noticeboards is sensible as well. You can suggest that the debate above be considered as "background" to save the previous contributors from re-hashing the same points again. When the RfC is closed after 30 days, the closer should take the debate thus far as part of the RfC. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Of course, that's why I restarted this discussion! Nevertheless, I still don't see your argument and you never responded to my refutation of your points. That said, it doesn’t seem like our opinions on this are changing. Barring a number of new voices becoming involved, we may need to consider other content dispute resolution methods? — MarkH21 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to the affective care of some editors, I am now unsure whether I am entitled to state my opinion (a second time!) in this thread, or not, and any helpful, uninvolved admin might save me from more severe retorsions by just topic banning me, and save WP from my disruptive view on info-boxes, by applying discretionary sanctions.
Since my hope of totally getting rid of this box were in vain, I consider this a new thread, and state that I still object to inserting an infobox of any genesis to this article. Especially:
- Field: It is questionable whether this proposition should be ascribed to number theory. By its formulation it is rather trivial and belongs there, but its proof is involved and not solely ascribable to number theory, thus rendering the field entry dubious, if not meaningless, or, worse(?), misleading. BTW, similar would hold for many propositions, h(o)untable by this box.
- Conjectured by/in: One might safely assume, for the quite simple formulation, that the article's proposition was conjectured already way earlier than the given year, and necessarily by other people. The conjecture is famous for Fermat just because of his cheeky claim on the rim of some manuscript. Again information is given in tabular form that requires expert interpretation for not to be misleading.
- First proof by/in: Yes, this it! This is the kind of knowledge worth having an infobox for (assuming it is waterproof, and it was not one of Yau's disciples, has not been kept secret by Gauß, or invented by Hilbert, ...). Even this category is of doubtful value for math articles.
- Implied by/Generalizations: I can only interpret these categories as a fundamental misconception of logical derivations. One might perhaps refer to some subsections in one arbitrarily selected derivation and claim its structural similarity to some proof of some named theorem, but this is just lucky coincidence. Any other proof might miss this similarity, have another one instead, ... The claim that experienced mathematicians would like, use, ur even find potentially useful is unsourced, if not unfounded.
*Do not reintroduce. Purgy (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- The first two objections are independent of this infobox. They're prominent features of the lead that have been established by consensus both here and in the mathematical literature.
- Field: There is no dispute that FLT is a problem of number theory. Sure, the proof uses algebraic geometry, analysis, etc. but so does almost every other proof of a modern problem in number theory. The first three words of the lead ascribe FLT as a problem of number theory and this is a characterization that has been standard in mathematics for centuries.
- Conjectured by/in: Again, this is something that has been clearly stated in the lead for a decade. This would be an objection independent of the infobox - if it is accepted to be stated unqualified in the lead then it should be fine in the infobox.
- First proof by/in: If the identity of who gave the proof of one of the most influential mathematical problems in history is undisputed, then it's clearly important information.
- Implied by/Generalizations: FLT is a known consequence of several major open problems in number theory in addition to the modularity theorem. It's not just structural similarity.
- But anyways, we are going to rehash the same arguments again and again. @RexxS: Thanks for the guidance, I'll ask the
formerarbitrator you mentioned if there is no objection or otherwise start an RfC. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I think for fairness reasons it is advisable to make explicit that there is no asking
if there is no objection
(against an official RfC), but that MarkH21 already asked for closing the debate.
- Comment: I think for fairness reasons it is advisable to make explicit that there is no asking
- Perhaps I don't understand your comment, but are you saying that we should have an official RfC instead of referring to User:Worm That Turned? The "if there is no objection" referred to any objection of the choice of arbitrator. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: The statements trying to justify an IB here by stating the connections of the IB fragments to the lead or the article take in no account that the IB (context-less) deprives these fragments, of the context offered in the article, thereby loosing almost all of their relevance, leaving only trivia of an inherently complex construct. Additionally, these remaining trivia, besides their high potential of mystification and misguidance, are not even of value for a laymen's chit-chat.Purgy (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Purgy Purgatorio: This is how the disputed infobox looks:
Fermat's Last Theorem Field Number theory Conjectured by Pierre de Fermat Conjectured in 1637 First proof by Andrew Wiles First proof in 1995 Implied by Generalizations - The field "conjectured by" is not a piece of trivia. The objection to that field was that it was not a conjecture. The refutation of that was provided by showing that the phrase
"This theorem was first conjectured by Pierre de Fermat in 1637"
has been in place in the lead for years. - The field "conjecture date" is not a piece of trivia. The objection to that field was that it was not a conjecture. The refutation of that was provided by showing that the phrase
"This theorem was first conjectured by Pierre de Fermat in 1637"
has been in place in the lead for years. - Those are the reasons why the presence of the phrase in the lead are adduced. Contrary to what Purgy Purgatorio believes, there is absolutely no "context" necessary to understand those facts.
- The field "field" gives a reader an at-a-glance indication of the mathematical field to which this theorem belongs. This is not trivia. It also presents information as a key-value pair, usable by third-party tools.
- The field "first proof by" gives a reader an at-a-glance indication of who first proved this theorem. This is not trivia. It also presents information as a key-value pair, usable by third-party tools.
- The field "first proof date" gives a reader an at-a-glance indication of when this theorem was first proven. This is not trivia. It also presents information as a key-value pair, usable by third-party tools.
- The fields "implied by" and "generalizations" may be more than the general reader will normally use, but may be useful to mathematical students who wanted to find this information efficiently. However, the link to the Modularity theorem, for example, is extensively discussed in the article and cannot be lightly dismissed as unsuitable for inclusion in an infobox. On the other hand, if these fields were included in an infobox, I would expect to see the article making far more mention of the other conjectures, as the infobox should only contain a summary of the key information in the article. None of the facts presented in these fields are trivia, and both also present information as key-value pairs, usable by third-party tools. --RexxS (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I do not doubt, not even a second, that it might be a rewarding target to make information contained in WP, as much as is possible, fully disregarding potential triviality, usable by third-party tools, and that there are potent stakes holders out there considering (re-)structuring WP this way a fruitful task. How these interests conflict with with genuine readers' interests must be researched, and how much they should be supported from within WP is to be decided upon and made transparent.
- - Calling information trivia requires fixing some scale. I plead for taking the level of the topic addressed by the article as the gauge. I consider the fact "1 + 1 = 2" as non-trivial in a pre-school environment, but as ridiculously trivial already in an encyclopedic article about "arithmetic". This article's topic can be stated in a trivial notation, but required in its proof very deep, partly new methods with a broad span of context, nothing apt for IBs. Calling entries of an IB ex cathedra
This is not trivia.
does not suffice, imho. - - I totally miss a refutation of my claim that most entries in this here IB are deprived of their highly non-trivial context, given by the article's content already yet, leaving there just a Box of Trivia, as measured at the level of the article's topic. Purgy (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please read MOS:LISTGAP. Be kind to those less fortunate than yourself.
- It is part of Wikipedia's vision to create "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." Jimmy Wales has made clear that Wikipedia is committed to allowing "developers to use its content on other websites". So that debate has already concluded. You can disengage from the process yourself, but you don't have the right to obstruct those wishing to expand the availability of the information in Wikipedia in as many ways as possible. It is not necessary to restructure Wikipedia in order to take advantage of the structure of infoboxes. Google has been using our infoboxes since 2008 when they were acknowledged as the largest source of structured data on the internet. Our audience extends beyond those reading our articles; and whatever conflict in interests may have been raised in the past are now settled. Your suggestion to re-examine issues that already have been settled is no more than an attempt to create unnecessary delay.
- Fixing a scale to gauge trivia is not necessary for Wikipedia. Common sense and common consensus will tell you what is trivial. Our content is aimed not at a pre-school environment, but at a reasonably competent reader – Wikipedia's score on the Flesch Reading Ease test in 2012 was 51, "Fairly difficult". Although efforts have been made to improve readability, there is little doubt that a Wikipedia reader is still expected to have reading ability and comprehension at least roughly equivalent to that of a good high-school student. There has never been any agreement that particular topics should be exempt from a requirement to be accessible to a general audience. That has been a perennial plea from every topic area that thinks it is somehow "special"; and it has been rejected consistently by the community. A mathematics article has no special status nor has it exemption from the expectation that it should be usable by the general readership. It simply is not tenable to try to argue that the year when a theorem was first conjectured, or first proven, is "trivia". That information quickly places the article in a historical context, and allows the reader to compare it with the dates of other topics. You fail to specify which of the seven infobox fields you consider trivial – is this because you cannot withstand scrutiny of your generalised assertions? No matter how much you opine otherwise, those seven facts can be seen by anyone to fit a common conception of "non-trivial".
- You are wrong to think that many aspects of this article's topic cannot be summarised concisely: the author, the date, the mathematical field, the person who made the first proof and the date of that, and so on. These key facts require no further context and are not so nuanced that they require significant explanation in the text. Such facts are eminently suitable for inclusion in an infobox.
- The refutation is clear: I have shown that the community rejects your plea for special treatment for mathematical articles. I have explained what our audience is. I have demonstrated what can be considered as "non-trivial" by our general audience. I have explained how each of the infobox's seven fields will be considered by that audience as "non-trivial". Quad erat demonstrandum.
- Additionally, you have failed to address the arguments that an infobox in this article would provide an "at-a-glance" summary of key facts, as 75% of our best articles do, and that an infobox in this article would provide key facts in a structured manner that enables third-parties to make use of them more easily. --RexxS (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing me to MOS, I was unaware of this; as I am of those less fortunate(?).
- The meanwhile walls of text clearly show to me that with my meager means of using English I am incapable of pointing out that
- - this IB for this article does not provide at-a-glance key facts of the article, as judged by pertinent competent, reputable editors,
- - I do not plea for a special treatment of math articles,
- - it is not the common sense/conception of an audience against which "triviality" is to be gauged (what a
condescence!should read CONDESCENDENCE!), but the level of the article's topic, - - depriving delicate information of its context for constructing info-bites fitting here to IB entries, is a way to deprecate WP content,
- - here it's not about Jimbo's or any editor's view on profitableness of automated extraction of data out of WP-content, but about article quality as perceived by those generally promoting IBs vs. their opponents.
- I think I stop any further efforts of argumentation for my incompetence in making me understood (see above the list of objections against each single entry in the suggested IB). Purgy (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- You call those arguments? You're just throwing out falsehoods in a verbose manner. Every single one of your claims is based on a fallacy.
- The infobox for this article does provide key facts from the article at-a-glance. You're the only dissenter from that, so there are no competent, reputable editors claiming otherwise. Are you claiming that none of author, date of conjecture, person who first proved, date of first proof, or mathematical field are key facts for Fermat's Last Theorem? Of course they are, and any rational reading of the article would show that to be so.
"I plead for taking the level of the topic addressed by the article as the gauge."
Of course you're asking for your mathematical articles to be treated differently. We write for a general audience for all articles; there's no exception for maths articles."it is not the common sense/conception of an audience against which "triviality" is to be gauged"
. Where did that come from? I wrote "Common sense and common consensus will tell you what is trivial." Are you having a problem in reading English? And what is "condescence"? Please make an attempt to communicate in English. This is the English Wikipedia, after all."depriving delicate information of its context for constructing info-bites fitting here to IB entries, is a way to deprecate WP content"
. Which of the seven pieces of information in the infobox is "delicate"? Which of those seven pieces of information require a context? What sort of context do you think the average reader needs to grasp that Fermat made his conjecture in 1637?- You have still failed to address the arguments that an infobox in this article would provide an "at-a-glance" summary of key facts, as 75% of our best articles do, and that an infobox in this article would provide key facts in a structured manner that enables third-parties to make use of them more easily. Why are you failing to engage in debate beyond mere contradiction? --RexxS (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Purgy Purgatorio: This is how the disputed infobox looks:
- Comment: The statements trying to justify an IB here by stating the connections of the IB fragments to the lead or the article take in no account that the IB (context-less) deprives these fragments, of the context offered in the article, thereby loosing almost all of their relevance, leaving only trivia of an inherently complex construct. Additionally, these remaining trivia, besides their high potential of mystification and misguidance, are not even of value for a laymen's chit-chat.Purgy (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding English, let us be civil and not re-escalate non-content disputes of which this topic has seen more than enough. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Just to note, the actual article here on FLT is not very technical and quite accessible to non-mathematical audiences. The proof is indeed very deep and uses novel ideas (in modularity lifting, Galois representations, etc.), but most details are in the article on Wiles's proof and not in this article. — MarkH21 (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Closing or RfC
Hi All. MarkH21 asked me to look at closing this after a recommendation by RexxS. I understand why RexxS suggested me, I'm a current arbitrator (clearly making a difference if no one knew that), who happened to draft Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes (sorry!). I've written articles with and without infoboxes, I've previously closed debates for and against - so I hope that I can be considered as fair minded. As an extra benefit, I have a degree in Maths and used to drink in a pub called Fermat's Number, so I'm clearly a good egg.
After that preamble, we come to the question - should we close this discussion, or open it up to the wider community? Having read through the discussion (and associated discussions, noted at User:Worm That Turned/FLT) I would recommend opening it to the wider community. The last thing I'd want to do is close this as no consensus and I believe more voices would be beneficial. That said, I am happy to weigh up the arguments at this point if people prefer. I leave it to you. WormTT(talk) 09:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding the question, I stand with my opinion that more voices do not necessarily lead to better decisions. Assuming good faith in the judgement of reputable experts (without COI) yields a more reliable result than gathering impressions from activists (who else chimes in?). Next I start with thanks for noting also the preliminary discussion on your subpage, continue with asserting me feeling submitted to the outcome of this process, state that I will try to avoid adding to what I said already (except when being asked, or blatantly misinterpreted), and finally, I hope for an unbiased reasonable outcome, especially since in the course of this I thought to perceive efforts to silence my opposition to this here IB by calmly persuading me, by being unreasonably and repeatedly ridiculed, templated, and even indef'd by a fast gun, reacting to a -say- perceived legal threat. All the best! Purgy (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I stand with Purgy on this. He seems to have taken the brunt of flak over this question and that appears to be rather unfair since he has been expressing the opinions that are basically shared by most, but not all, of the experienced math editors. This started with the observation that there weren't very many infoboxes in math articles, which I take as indirect evidence of the esteem these things are held in by the editors most involved in these articles. Opening an RfC will further degenerate this discussion into generic pro- and anti-infobox sides, and the voices of those who would naturally create and maintain them would, I'm afraid, be lost in the uproar. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can see how that may happen, but there are only 3 opposes (which I hope isn't most of the experience math editors?) in the discussion to include the infobox in this article as it stands now. Nevertheless, we can defer to Worm That Turned if there is opposition towards creating an RfC. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Per the recommendation of Worm That Turned and seeing that there are only 3 existing opposes, 5 supports, and 1 "meh", I think it may be fairer to all parties to open an RfC. See Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem#Request for comment (RfC) on inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Because of referring to lack of flaming outcry by experienced math editors with "only 3 opposes", I can't help but explicitly outing (Personal attack removed) MarkH21 as the author of this template under discussion, certainly planning for adoption of this IB at any math statement looking out of WP, and for this reason having a serious bias to see his template, that survived a suggestion for deletion by one of these editors, applied at one more occasion. I am surprised by the expectation that experienced math editors would be bludgeoning on this eternal dispute (more interesting things galore), lead by only(???) three manifest IB-promoters, unknown for substantial contributions to math articles, by the template's author, and an editor almost abstaining from math topics for his professional reasons. That much mobilization can be seen against the template here, too. Purgy (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
"Prior" consensus to infobox on FLT
From a bureaucratic POV, void of any context, one is correct in claiming the right of adding that box, but some editors seem to be unaware of a previous held discussion at the TP of Project Math, inclined to "not using this box". Even setting aside this fact, I am convinced of my right to revert the addition, and to require a discussion on the article's TP for reaching a consensus on including that box. Upsetting the BRD-process for me not explicitly referring (in an edit summary!) to a discussion elsewhere seems wrong under any circumstances. Re-adding the box prior to a consensus looks like the possible start of an edit war to me. Purgy (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that you certainly had the right to revert the addition and ask for a consensus afterwards. I believe that the objections to "I am firmly convicted that there should be established consensus on implementing an infobox here, BEFORE doing so" were rooted in the word "here" and "BEFORE" which means that you are requiring a separate consensus for each individual article before an infobox may be added to that individual article (so different from the WikiProject Mathematics discussion which was about the infobox in general). Indeed, it is not standard to require consensus for each individual iteration prior to addition. I don't know if it was your intention to make this distinction though. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Consensus can change. WikiProjects are useful for editors with shared interests to coordinate their activities, but consensus on their talk pages are not binding on the community generally; this is why, in this case, we have a separate TfD process that does not just reduce to pointing to WP Math. Invoking the arguments over at WP Math is fine—good, even, since it has bearing on this discussion. But the time to do that is when you revert or right after, not two days on. This is the "D" part of BRD. I've seen a few invocations of BRD in this conversation that seem premised on the idea that it justifies reverting any bold edit for whatever reason, as if it ended with "R". As BRD says, "BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle." Lagrange613 14:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Lagrange, The addition of the box had no rationale ("Add infobox" was the edit summary), which isn't helpful either. A bold edit to include has to carry not an explanation of what step was taken (blindingly obvious when the diff is examined, but an explanation of the reason behind it (see the top of WP:EDIT SUMMARY: "
this helps others to understand the intention of your edit
" - no-one has any idea of the intention of the edit in this case). Removal of a bold edit is a challenge to that edit - that much is obvious, particularly when the intention is unclear (in this case why add an IB?; what about it improves the article?, etc). - Trying to quote parts of a guideline while pointing out "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" is a little ironic, no? That there has been a spate of back and forth on the box is unsurprising, but when Purgy removed a bold edit - as he is entirely entitled to do, absolutely no-one should have re-added it: the matter should have been bought straight here without further editing to include an IB or not. I see Purgy has has a DS notice slapped on him; the same sanctions are applied to ALL people who joined in the edit warring around it. - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes including RexxS, who edit warred to restore the template twice, and who was also the one who "slapped" the the DS notice on Purgy Purgatorio. Paul August ☎ 11:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think RexxS has already been given the template before, if memory serves me. - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- The point of the DS alert is to let editors know that discretionary sanctions are available in the area. The documentation also makes it clear that anyone who "slaps" a DS notice – as Paul August so inelegantly puts it – is clearly aware of the DS sanctions, as of course I am. As for your accusation of "edit-warring", Paul August, I'll simply state that I'm not prepared to see perfectly reasonable edits reverted for bogus reasons {"lack of prior consensus" indeed!) and without any engagement on the talk page. You may feel it's a good idea to encourage such behaviour, but I'll suggest that your administrative skills would be better employed in tamping down the shrill rhetoric and unnecessary ad hominems on this talk page. It is possible to carry out these debates in a civilised manner; it is possible to make legitimate criticisms of other arguments without being subject to personal attacks in retaliation. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- A minor correction RexxS: I was the one who was first to be inelegant in the use of the "slapped" above. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- My apologies, SchroCat. Although looking at it, I do think your use was far from inelegant. In my defence, I can only say that I took considerable care to check the guidance and the logs, etc. before slapping, so it was not quite as unconsidered as it may have seemed. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- A minor correction RexxS: I was the one who was first to be inelegant in the use of the "slapped" above. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- The point of the DS alert is to let editors know that discretionary sanctions are available in the area. The documentation also makes it clear that anyone who "slaps" a DS notice – as Paul August so inelegantly puts it – is clearly aware of the DS sanctions, as of course I am. As for your accusation of "edit-warring", Paul August, I'll simply state that I'm not prepared to see perfectly reasonable edits reverted for bogus reasons {"lack of prior consensus" indeed!) and without any engagement on the talk page. You may feel it's a good idea to encourage such behaviour, but I'll suggest that your administrative skills would be better employed in tamping down the shrill rhetoric and unnecessary ad hominems on this talk page. It is possible to carry out these debates in a civilised manner; it is possible to make legitimate criticisms of other arguments without being subject to personal attacks in retaliation. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think RexxS has already been given the template before, if memory serves me. - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Non-bureaucracies can have guidelines. The point is that we don't carry questions of whether mathematical statements over to the Division of Mathematics Articles, Formatting Department, Infobox Working Group—we discuss as a community and come to consensus. I think WP:EDITSUMCITE is quite sensible in saying the summary should summarize the edit and explain it "if you think other editors may be unclear as to why you made it". I've never had any trouble interpreting edits that add content as motivated by a desire to complete the article. Reverts should be better motivated than "get consensus before doing this". Lagrange613 14:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's rather clear that not all edits the "add content" are beneficial, and I've never tried to be the mind-reader who decides what an editor's motivation is in making any edits. If something is added that is not an improvement, of course it should be reverted, and to complain about the hollowness of one edit summary when the initial summary was equally hollow seems such a tiresome waste of everyone's time. I think the question of the edit summary has now been done to death, particularly given the "Apology" section below. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- At the risk of prolonging the issue, I agree with SchroCat's points in general, but would like to take the opportunity to reinforce that benefit is key to justifying edits. If editor A adds an infobox with the summary "I think this improves the article"; and editor B reverts with the summary "I think this makes the article worse - let's discuss it on talk", you certainly won't see any complaints from me. --RexxS (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's rather clear that not all edits the "add content" are beneficial, and I've never tried to be the mind-reader who decides what an editor's motivation is in making any edits. If something is added that is not an improvement, of course it should be reverted, and to complain about the hollowness of one edit summary when the initial summary was equally hollow seems such a tiresome waste of everyone's time. I think the question of the edit summary has now been done to death, particularly given the "Apology" section below. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes including RexxS, who edit warred to restore the template twice, and who was also the one who "slapped" the the DS notice on Purgy Purgatorio. Paul August ☎ 11:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Lagrange, The addition of the box had no rationale ("Add infobox" was the edit summary), which isn't helpful either. A bold edit to include has to carry not an explanation of what step was taken (blindingly obvious when the diff is examined, but an explanation of the reason behind it (see the top of WP:EDIT SUMMARY: "
Apologies
I apologize for the wording of my edit summary, under scrutiny at length in the threads above. If I had the capability, I had revised it long ago, not only for the use of wrong words, but mostly for not unmistakably expressing my assumptions, intentions and expectations then. Furthermore, I was not aware of the specific custody (discretionary sanctions) infoboxes are under. Obviously, at least one(?) admin thinks that I'd better be warned, before being found by discretion to be violating them.
My assumption before reverting the addition of the IB was that MarkH21 is aware of not only singular objection to the application of his product. Nevertheless, I assumed the addition as a not explicitly forbidden edit, even when not fully de rigeur to my measures, because of the known, denial-inclined discussion held at the TP of PMath. In contrast, I then considered my revert as fully appropriate - I am not so sure now, but rather feel somehow intimidated (I am repeatedly templated, I was indef'd meanwhile, ...). I then intended to find out whether the author's enthusiasm or the reservations formulated on TP:PM prevail in the discussion. I expected, since it is a math topic, a realistic, businesslike discussion, I did not expect the observable lobbyist driven escalation. Purgy (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Re "at least one(?) admin", no RexxS is not an admin. And it's a bit rich their templating you regarding discretionary sanctions, given that they've edit warred over the template and you haven't. Paul August ☎ 13:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Purgy Purgatorio I'm not an admin, although the ability to alert another editor to discretionary sanctions is not reserved to admins. I most certainly do not mean it to be taken as any reflection on your actions, but to acquaint you with the constraints under which we discuss these issues. I would like the opportunity to debate fully the issue at hand in a civilised manner, but that must include granting each of us the opportunity to raise reasoned objections to points made by others, without falling back to personal insults such as I have been subjected to.
- Paul August If you want to criticise my alerting another editor to the presence of discretionary sanctions in these discussions, then take it to the appropriate DR forum, where I'll be pleased to refute your charges. Otherwise, I'll treat your baseless sniping in the manner it deserves. --RexxS (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your apology. Leaving aside the edit summary, your initial revert was fine. Paul August ☎ 12:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- This was so close to exactly the right thing to say, and then you called your fellow editors on the other side of this dispute "lobbyist driven" rather than "motivated by a desire to improve the encyclopedia and differing with me on some of the details". Do try to assume good faith. Nonetheless, thank you for the thrust toward greater collegiality. If you're surprised that professional mathematicians could get worked up about minor technical quibbles, then you haven't spent a lot of time around professional mathematicians. Finally, I'll just affirm that reverting was in bounds; it was the edit summary that bothered me. Lagrange613 14:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Paul August A revert with the stated reason of Undid revision 883585716 by MarkH21 (talk) I am firmly convicted that there should be established consensus on implementing an infobox here, BEFORE doing so is anything but fine.
- WP:CONLOCAL makes it clear:
The relevant community-wide guideline is MOS:INFOBOXUSE:"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
When there has been no prior discussion and consensus among the editors at a given article, the reversion of the addition of an infobox on no better grounds that "I think they should have asked first" is an affront to WP:BRD and all our normal editing policies. You should not be encouraging it. --RexxS (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)"The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."
Civility
Above RexxS has accused Magidin of incivility. I believe that both editors should cool down. Using words like "pretending", “ludicrous”, "worthless" do not usually contribute to a collegial discussion. And yes "tone" of course matters, especially in a "textual discussion". Please let us all try to be less aggressive and more collegial. And apologies are always a good thing. Paul August ☎ 13:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Paul August: I stand by my accusation. As for your accusations against me:
"No. There is no requirement for prior consensus in order for any editor to make an edit. Pretending that consensus for inclusion has to be established first is anathemic to to how Wikipedia works."
What would you like to see substituted for "pretending"? "Incorrectly claiming", perhaps? I'd be happy to make that amendment."It is ludicrous to suggest that Merriam-Webster's dictionary is "an inappropriate source".
What would you like to see substituted for "ludicrous"? – "risible", "illogical", perhaps? Feel free to suggest an alternative and I'll make the amendment."Your objection on grounds that you disagree with that common understanding is worthless."
I fail to see what is uncivil about pointing out to another editor that their argument (that they disagree with how the general population understands the word "conjecture") will carry no weight with the closer of the discussion. I'd be most grateful if you would clarify your objection to my phrasing, and perhaps suggest what else I could have written to convey the same intent and I'll be glad to comply.
- Now, let's have a look at the partisan way that you've approached this point. I see no criticism from you of:
"laying down the law"
; of"shows just more than a bit of hubris"
; of"you apparently cannot tell the difference between a verb and a noun"
; of" I find your contributions so far to be misguided and worthless"
; and of"only your royal fiat that counts"
. - Are those examples also worthy of your criticism, or is one side of the debate immune from your condemnation? You're a respected member of the community and an administrator of long-standing, so I'm sure I can count on your understanding of the importance of even-handedness in trying to calm a debate. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Article Protection
I’ve lifted the protection of this article. However, as yet I see no consensus for adding the proposed template. Please no more edits regarding the proposed template until such time as a talk page consensus has been reached. Paul August ☎ 19:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Request for comment (RfC) on inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement
Should Template:Infobox mathematical statement be applied to the article Fermat's Last Theorem in any form? The proposed implementation can be seen here and here.
For background and previous input, please see the discussion above at Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem#Inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement. An overview of associated discussions is listed at User:Worm That Turned/FLT. 07:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. The sort of thing that can go into an infobox is too superficial and distorting (too much making mathematics into a competitive sport of who scores first rather than conveying any understanding of the actual mathematics involved and the cooperation required to achieve that understanding) to justify the waste of article space and reader attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I, as a reader, can't get from the prose that the article is related to number theory, - just one example. The infobox should not present mathematical undestanding, imho, but tell a reader the context of this article, in history and mathematics. The prose begins for experts only, not for me, a random reader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I do not see why you do not get from the prose that it is related to number theory when the first sentence starts with "In number theory"! PJTraill (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Because I am a superficial reader, who began reading at the bolded item. My mistake. Readers are not perfect, that's my point. I vote for giving something to the not so good readers also. It doesn't take away from those who can safely ignore it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I do not see why you do not get from the prose that it is related to number theory when the first sentence starts with "In number theory"! PJTraill (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I, as a reader, can't get from the prose that the article is related to number theory, - just one example. The infobox should not present mathematical undestanding, imho, but tell a reader the context of this article, in history and mathematics. The prose begins for experts only, not for me, a random reader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support: To avoid wasting space here, I will refer to the arguments others and I made in the main body and the post-TfD part of the previous discussion. Briefest of summaries: accessibility for casual + knowledgeable readers; logical connections to other conjectures/theorems for knowledgeable + expert readers; valuable third-party information; summarizes (already explicitly stated) info. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support: an infobox makes the article much more accessible to the occasional reader unfamiliar with the topic. Needless to say, with only confirmed facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per the good points made by David Eppstein. I would also add that the presence of the infobox and the trivial (as in trivia) manner in which it presents information misleading implies that there was no progress for hundreds of years until a solution was instantly produced. The article should reflect that the history and development of this idea is more complicated. I might support a sidebar timeline that shows progress and advancement. While early sources and the news media tend to over-hype the myth of the lone genius, the overwhelming trend in modern scholarship is to provide a more nuanced historiography. --mikeu talk 12:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I kind of like the idea of a sidebar timeline. As for the infamous infobox itself, I'm finding it hard to summon real passion either for or against. This isn't some attempt to claim a moral high ground by being above the fray (this week, I just seem to be drained in general), but both the benefits and the harms have come across to me as a touch oversold. If the infobox is just repeating data given in the prose, well, people can read that. On the other hand, it does give fairly prominent visibility to the idea of connections among mathematical topics, which might (I don't know for sure) actually help promote the sense that mathematics is collaborative. Sorry for bringing fizzle instead of fireworks, but that's where I am. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per arguments given by David Eppstein. While I have a mild dislike of infoboxes in general, this feeling is much stronger when the infobox concerns mathematical statements such as this one. If the purpose of an infobox is to make the subject accessible to the casual reader, then the infobox should say something about the subject! Outside of the re-statement of the theorem, there is nothing here which gives any insight into the theorem. Statements as to why it was so hard to prove and where does it fit within the structure of mathematical theory are not to be found here. Instead we are treated to auxiliary factoids; who conjectured it, who proved it, etc. The reason for this is clear, any substantial remarks about the theorem can't be squeezed into the infobox format where only sound-bites fit.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support The Infobox succinctly communicates a number of key points of information which the lead does not so readily communicate at all. It summarises enough of those key points of information to serve a purpose - the most important being the amazing time delay between its conjecture in 1637 and its proof in 1995. To me, that is a stunningly significant point to communicate, and the use of an Infobox here does so far more effectively (to a mathematical ignoramus like me, who didn't even understand the first sentence of the lead, yet has long been aware of the existence of FLT) than does wading through the lead to try to comprehend its significance. This is what Infoboxes are intended to do, and this one does it well in my view. What a shame it requires an RfC to decide upon its merits. Haven't you all got better things to do than fuss over such trivial matters of presentation? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just in case this helps, I'll add some context to my reply above by explaining that I have not read any prior arguments for or against the use of this template in this article, nor, if I'm honest, do I have any interest in wading through them. I simply arrived here following an attempt to assist an editor on Infobox use at the WP:TH. My comments above are a simple !vote in response to seeing an RfC request, and are based upon my lifelong involvement in helping uninformed users of any resource to quickly understand key elements of complicated concepts. If just one of them goes away knowing a tiny amount more than they did when they arrived, then that didactic process has, in part, been successful. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support It gives valuable information about the topic in a succinct form, which is exactly what a good infobox should do. A lot of the arguments against including it strike me as stuffy gatekeeping. e.g. (from the discussion about creating a mathematical statement infobox):
Infoboxes are inane. They're fine for filling out the details of inane subjects, like the teams a footballer has played on, but they are inherently a way of reducing material to a 5-second soundbite for readers who don't even have the attention span for a single full sentence at the start of the article.
. I couldn't disagree with this more strongly. For example, I would hardly call Lawrence v. Texas an inane subject, and yet the SCOTUS case infobox there serves a very useful purpose in serving up much of the most salient information about the case in a structured format that's easily scanned. The arguments that purport to be against the suitability of the infobox in this particular case (rather than arguing against the acceptability of infoboxes in general) seem pretty thin to me. e.g. the the idea that a reader seeing that FLT was conjectured in 1637 and proven in 1995 would assume that no progress was made in between strikes me as specious. I simply don't believe that's how a normal human would react to that information. (Especially when a glance at the scrollbar shows me that this is an awfully long article, and a glance at the ToC shows that there's a long history section). Colin M (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)- Question Would it be possible to include information about the progress made during those intermediate centuries, say in a field called "notable advances" or "partial results" or the like? XOR'easter (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support The proposed format seems reasonably calculated to present key information; the fact that it does not articulate every aspect of the sequence of work on the the theorem is not in itself compelling reason that an infobox is detrimental to the aritcle: that is both a false choice and a non sequitur. The infobox can and should be improved with time and it's function is clearly not just to to tell the internal story of the progress towards a proof but also to contextualize the topic within the broader framework of mathematics. Furthermore, I don't see why the assertion that the infobox listing only a few key dates implies that this is all there was to the story, any more than presenting a written summary in the lead suggests a lack of fuller context to be explored lower in the article; I just read the infobox for the very first time (thanks to the links in the RfC prompt) immediately before reading the above !votes, and the infobox left me with no such impression. All told, the infobox as proposed seems like a perfectly reasonable and well-approached addition to the article. I'm sure it can be improved upon with time, but I see no particularly compelling argument for omitting the element entirely simply because it can't tell the whole story in itself. Snow let's rap 07:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as presented. Very little of the information proposed for the infobox is accurate, sourcable, and helpful. Generally opposed to the use of this infobox, but could be convinced if entries were accurate, sourcable (including avoiding WP:SYNTHESIS), and helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support I do not find infoboxes clutter, as I find it trivial to ignore them (on a large screen, I admit). PJTraill (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Does nobody else care that the oversimplifications made in condensing information down to an infobox make it factually incorrect? It is false that the abc conjecture implies Fermat's last theorem. It is also false that the Fermat–Catalan conjecture implies the theorem. Both of those things imply that there are at most finitely many solutions to the Fermat equation, but the theorem states instead that there are no solutions at all. Also what is the difference between "implied by" and "generalizations" supposed to mean? Because if it doesn't imply the theorem, how can it be a generalization? To be more nitpicky, it is also incorrect that the theorem was posed in 1637 (we only know an approximate date) or that it was proved in 1995 (that's when the proof was published, not when it was found). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm still not sold on the idea of the infobox in the first place, but on the other hand, those problems look fixable, e.g., by changing "proof" to "proof published", adding a "circa" to the 1637, and removing the items like "abc conjecture". XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Or we could, you know, write in full sentences and paragraphs that are capable of conveying nuance, rather than trying to condense everything down to inaccurate "descriptor: answer" fragments. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'll respond to the concerns about 1) Implication vs generalization, 2) Fermat–Catalan conjecture, and 3) the abc conjecture:
- Regarding implication vs generalization, the difference is that an implication has a logical meaning (if X then Y) and a generalization is taking something specific and applying it more broadly. From the previous discussion above:
For an example of the distinction between "implied by" and "generalizations": The Generalized Poincaré conjecture is a generalization of the Poincaré conjecture as it extends the statement to broader settings. The geometrization conjecture implies the Poincaré conjecture but is not a generalization as it concerns a different kind of problem that has an application to the setting of the Poincaré conjecture. Generalizations of X always imply X, but the converse is not necessarily true!
- The Fermat-Catalan conjecture broadens the context of Fermat's Last Theorem and is often called a generalization of Fermat's Last Theorem in the literature.[1][2][3] There is no claim that it implies Fermat's Last Theorem here.
- Regarding the abc conjecture, it is true that the versions given at abc conjecture only implies Fermat's Last Theorem for sufficiently large exponents,[4] but there are several variations of the conjecture (as can be seen from the formulations already in the article) and several effective versions of the abc conjecture do imply Fermat's Last Theorem. In fact, one of them is described here.[5] If others find that we should remove the abc conjecture from the "Implied by" list (and therefore remove the modified Szpiro conjecture as well), I am fine with that. We could also modify it to read effective abc conjecture.
I hope that addresses some of the concerns here. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Details on the abc conjecture, Beal conjecture, and Fermat-Catalan conjecture have now been added to the article with appropriate references. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is the second time you've explained implication vs. generalization to a PhD-holding professional mathematician. I think you should consider that the reason PhD-holding professional mathematicians have raised the issue twice independently is that the distinction you are making is highly debatable in practice: the two categories are not clearly separated, as you suggest, and the classification of a statement into exactly one of them is not typically going to be straightforward or uncontentious. --JBL (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding implication vs generalization, the difference is that an implication has a logical meaning (if X then Y) and a generalization is taking something specific and applying it more broadly. From the previous discussion above:
- Infoboxes are a companion to the text of an article, not a replacement for it. If someone wants a short answer to the question "When was Fermat's Last Theorem proven?", "1995" is the most reasonable answer you could give them. This NYT piece, for example, briefly mentions that Andrew Wiles "finally proved the theorem in 1995". If someone had more time to listen, you could expand on that answer by talking about the flawed proof that was released in 1993, how Wiles eventually realized how to repair the proof in September 1994, and how a final proof was submitted in manuscript form in October of 1994, underwent peer review, and finally was published in May of 1995. The infobox is the place for the short answer. The prose of the article is the place for the long answer.
- I'm still not sold on the idea of the infobox in the first place, but on the other hand, those problems look fixable, e.g., by changing "proof" to "proof published", adding a "circa" to the 1637, and removing the items like "abc conjecture". XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is a very common pattern in articles. e.g. "How big is the Atlantic Ocean?" Short answer (infobox): 106,460,000 km2. Long answer (prose): well, different authorities define the oceanic boundaries differently, and they've changed over time, and it depends whether you include its marginal seas, so it might be X, or it might be Y, or... Colin M (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Cai, Tianxin; Chen, Deyi; Zhang, Yong (2015). "A new generalization of Fermat's Last Theorem". Journal of Number Theory. 149: 33–45.
- ^ Mihailescu, Preda (2007). "A Cyclotomic Investigation of the Catalan -- Fermat Conjecture". Mathematica Gottingensis.
- ^ Barrow-Green, June; Leader, Imre; Gowers, Timothy (2008). The Princeton Companion to Mathematics. Princeton University Press. pp. 361–362.
- ^ Lang's Algebra pg. 196
- ^ Granville, Andrew; Tucker, Thomas (2002). "It's As Easy As abc" (PDF). Notices of the AMS. 49 (10): 1224–1231.
- Support for the reasons I gave above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, for all arguments against including this IB are only met with intimidation, condescendence, emphasized "I-say-so", repeated false claims of transporting "key facts", where there is mostly irrelevance heaped upon misguidance, and appealing to common sense, identified with the own opinion, even denying to responsibly measure IB's (non-)triviality. The hope for IBs would help the cursory, superficial readers is also in vain for this article (and most mathematical articles), because of the mentioned lack of relevance for the info transferable in IBs. Additionally, one should have in mind the many articles about Mathematical statements, now unspoiled, that have to expect being plastered with this template soon. Principiis obsta. Even when the article were deteriorated only a minuscule amount by adding this IB, I would not support the addressed "third party" interests, and also not the personal gain for superficial readers at the expense of genuine readers with a mature interest in the topic, deserving not to be distracted by pretending-only IBs. To sum it up, the IB here is confined to mostly trivia, missing the inherent values of this article, by presenting rubbish "executive briefs" in a show case. Purgy (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Infobox of this discussion, i.e. executive summary for the cursory reader: those who contribute to the maths articles consider this kind of oversimplifying infobox as only misleading, while the infoboxers are more than often people that don't contribute to this kind of articles (or even don't read them). But it could be useful to write the first lead sentence in blinking orange in order to help the cursory passer-by to detect that Fermat's Theorem is a Theorem that belongs to Number Theory and is named by reference to a guy who, marvelous coincidence, was himself named Fermat. Pldx1 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Support inclusion of an infobox. I believe that the infobox should, for now, contain these fields in addition to the lead image: Contrary to Arthur Rubin's assertion, each of those facts is obviously substantially sourced in the article. They are accurate, uncontroversial and helpful to a casual reader who wants to find a simple fact, as well as to a reader whose first language is not English (and therefore may have more difficulty in finding those key facts in the article). Using that infobox also presents each of those facts as structured data that is easily accessible by third-party re-users, an accepted part of the mission of Wikipedia. I reject the contention that those facts areFermat's Last Theorem Field Number theory Conjectured by Pierre de Fermat Conjectured in 1637 First proof by Andrew Wiles First proof in 1995 Implied by Modularity theorem "too superficial and distorting"
. They are patently not. I reject the contention that the "trivial (as in trivia) manner in which it presents information misleading implies that there was no progress for hundreds of years
" The dates demarcate the start point and the end point of the proof, there is clearly no implication beyond that. Who would draw the conclusion that nobody worked on the proof for hundreds of years and then it was suddenly proved overnight? It's not a reasonable objection. I reject the implied accusation that the "infobox [does not] say something about the subject!
" It tells the reader who formulated the theorem; who proved it; when those events occurred; and what field of mathematics the theorem belongs to. That's a perfectly reasonable use of an infobox here. I also object strongly to Purgy Purgatorio's continued personalisation of this debate. I would like to know if an uninvolved admin would find the their diatribe above, aimed at those who disagree with them, to be compatible with the discretionary sanctions applicable here, particularly ArbComs injunction:"All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general."
--RexxS (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)- Thanks for those links - that was an interesting rabbit hole to climb down. I had no idea that the inclusion of infoboxes had a history of provoking such ferocious debate (apparently going back at least as far as 2013). It's helpful in contextualizing this discussion. Colin M (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment. Adding the following desinfobox to the Cantor-Bernstein-Schroder theorem page would have the great merit of provoking ferocious debates where a casual passer-by could take a better part. No need to understand what the theorem is about to discuss the infobox at infinity about when, who, was it a proof, ", is a blog a sufficient source to back-up 1898, who ever said that your source is reliable, has the image the right size, and so on. On the contrary, discussing what happens when excluding the 'excluded middle' would be too horrible for the casual passer-by. On the other hand, a math article should perhaps be centered about mathematics and cosmetics should only be used with an actual purpose. Pldx1 (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Cantor-Bernstein-Schroder theorem Field set theory Conjectured by Cantor Conjectured in 1895 First proof by Schroder First proof in 1898 Implied by Axiom of choice - Better yet, why not put that on the Straw man page where it would be a fine example. This RfC is about the article Fermat's Last Theorem. The date that Fermat's Last Theorem was first expounded and by whom are both significant pieces of information, which are verifiable by reliable sources and are accurate, not misleading, summaries of content already in the article. Exactly the same applies to the date of and author of the first proof. And to the field of mathematics that Fermat's Last Theorem belongs to. This RfC does not suggest that the infobox should debate
"who said it was a proof"
, and there is no reliance on a blog for either of the dates. They are already reliably sourced in the article. The image is a standard size in an infobox, so there's no debate to be had there. Not one of the issues you raise address the value of adding an infobox (with content to be decided by consensus) to Fermat's Last Theorem. Perhaps you need me to remind you to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)discussion about infoboxes in general
is a straw elephant. It is clear that nobody discusses here if articles about Korean painters should have infoboxen or not. Paintings and theorems are two different kinds of animals, aren't they ? But the very name of the template {{Infobox mathematical statement}} indicates that it has not been written to be used only at FLT. The intent seems to experiment with one article, and then, in case of success, invade all articles containing mathematical statements, i.e. all the non empty math articles. Anders gesagt: behind the straw-elephant comes the elephant-in-the-room ! Pldx1 (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)- You lost that argument when the attempt to delete the infobox template failed. You need to stop taking a battlefield approach –
"invaded"
, indeed! – to the topic of infoboxes or it will end badly for you. Concentrate on the arguments for and against an infobox in this article. Here's a cue sheet for you to learn the proper decorum from: User:RexxS/Infobox factors. --RexxS (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)- It doesn't come across as particularly honest to start a comment with "you lost" and then admonish the other person for taking a battleground approach. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then obviously your standards for usage of English are far different from mine. There's a world of difference between using the commonplace phrase "lost an argument" and the phrase "invade all articles containing mathematical statements". I find the former a rather neutral use of the verb 'to lose', and the latter to be a rather pointed hyperbole indicative of a battlefield mentality. Calling a fellow editor dishonest on those sort of grounds really should be sanctionable in a place where WP:AC/DS apply. Don't you agree? --RexxS (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Don't I agree that your use of battleground win-lose terminology is perfectly civil disagreement while those you oppose in the disagreement are exhibiting a battleground mentality? Don't I agree that anyone who points out your double standard is being uncivil to you and should be sanctioned while your classifying others' remarks as "pointed hyperbole" and calling for sanctions on them is again perfectly civil disagreement? No and no. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- So you think my use of "lose an argument" is sanctionable, and your pal's use of "invade all articles containing mathematical statements" is perfectly acceptable? There's only one of us being partisan here, and it's not me. Your personalisation of other editors' disagreement with your view is what is sanctionable; and if it continues it will only be a matter of time before an uninvolved admin spots that and takes action. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Don't I agree that your use of battleground win-lose terminology is perfectly civil disagreement while those you oppose in the disagreement are exhibiting a battleground mentality? Don't I agree that anyone who points out your double standard is being uncivil to you and should be sanctioned while your classifying others' remarks as "pointed hyperbole" and calling for sanctions on them is again perfectly civil disagreement? No and no. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then obviously your standards for usage of English are far different from mine. There's a world of difference between using the commonplace phrase "lost an argument" and the phrase "invade all articles containing mathematical statements". I find the former a rather neutral use of the verb 'to lose', and the latter to be a rather pointed hyperbole indicative of a battlefield mentality. Calling a fellow editor dishonest on those sort of grounds really should be sanctionable in a place where WP:AC/DS apply. Don't you agree? --RexxS (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- It doesn't come across as particularly honest to start a comment with "you lost" and then admonish the other person for taking a battleground approach. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- You lost that argument when the attempt to delete the infobox template failed. You need to stop taking a battlefield approach –
- In response to the comment (rather than the preceding discussion of it), surely it is not hard to add optional parameters to cope with controversial (abc) proofs and those that depend on particular axiomatisations or systems of logic, not to mention status of conjectures? PJTraill (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Better yet, why not put that on the Straw man page where it would be a fine example. This RfC is about the article Fermat's Last Theorem. The date that Fermat's Last Theorem was first expounded and by whom are both significant pieces of information, which are verifiable by reliable sources and are accurate, not misleading, summaries of content already in the article. Exactly the same applies to the date of and author of the first proof. And to the field of mathematics that Fermat's Last Theorem belongs to. This RfC does not suggest that the infobox should debate
- Support Part of the population of readers need overarching information followed by information specifics to understand and learn. Others do better dealing with specifics followed by the overarching or can do with out the overarching altogether. This infobox, in a topic area that requires some speciality in education provides that kind of overarching information which makes information more accessible to some people. Those of us who teach know there is no one way of presenting information that works for everyone; we learn to inform all types. By extension as an encyclopedia whose mission is to present information, to teach, there is no argument that allows us to exclude one kind of reader, ever. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - adding Wikipedia:Tarage's Law. The example RexxS provided was helpful. I also find series infoboxes quite helpful. Atsme Talk 📧 17:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Useful for many readers and very easy to maintain. Jrheller1 (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support for reasons I outlined in the prior discussion. Mathematicians should guard against the notion that our field is a special snowflake whose depths resist concise summary. Lagrange613 19:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Answering to
Concentrate on the arguments for and against an infobox in this article
by pointing to the logical fallacy of following this very sentence by a link to a catechism for infobox defenders would be too easy. Let us concentrate on the teaching argument. Indeed, teaching of mathematics should be improved. Too many lectures follow the line of
Lecture_1: God said to Abraham: “there aren't genuine when ”. But
Lecture_2: God said to Abraham: “I got a proof and a large margin” is not better.
Maths are starting when the believer turns into a student and asks: “hey, you, let's look at your proof!”. When the angry consumer comes and shouts “Be damned with your large margins. Give me something to believe and sufficiently narrowed be written in an infobox”, this turns into:
--- Well Abe says, “Where you say this proof been done?”
--- God says, “Out on Highway Sixty-One”.
And the angry consumer is satisfied, repeating 1995, 1995 while God runs Her hand through Her long hairs and says to Herself, mezza-voce : it only takes a week to create a world, but 10 semesters to teach maths. If there were miracles, I would already know ! Pldx1 (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)- Why not concentrate on the arguments for and against an infobox in this article? It's not that difficult if you have genuine grounds to argue from. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- A more explicit statement of the same arguments. Doing maths is (1) finding results ; (2) finding proofs ; (3) checking if a given proof really proves what the proof is intended to prove. Everyone involved in maths knows that steps (1) and (2) are the more difficult ones and the more time-consuming. And the ones that should be targeted when teaching maths. The key fact here, if any, is that step (2) taked so long a time, and resulted into the discovery of a large list of results... that were irrelevant to the final proof of the FLT, but were nevertheless fundamental results for maths as a general topic. By the way, saying that 1995 is
overarching
here, i.e. an all-embracing fact, looks as a joke intended to bad-mouth the believers of this specific infobox. Lets do a grep onoverarching
to detect who dared to use that word ! Pldx1 (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- A more explicit statement of the same arguments. Doing maths is (1) finding results ; (2) finding proofs ; (3) checking if a given proof really proves what the proof is intended to prove. Everyone involved in maths knows that steps (1) and (2) are the more difficult ones and the more time-consuming. And the ones that should be targeted when teaching maths. The key fact here, if any, is that step (2) taked so long a time, and resulted into the discovery of a large list of results... that were irrelevant to the final proof of the FLT, but were nevertheless fundamental results for maths as a general topic. By the way, saying that 1995 is
- Why not concentrate on the arguments for and against an infobox in this article? It's not that difficult if you have genuine grounds to argue from. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. An infobox such as the one included in this discussion section will help highlight key facts for those who are looking for exactly that and doesn't in anyway hinder those who are looking for more in-depth information that cannot be quickly summarised. While its possible that there are other things someone could be looking for in this manner which cannot be succinctly summarised, they are not present in the proposed infobox and are not a barrier to the inclusion of things that can be so condensed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose While there are decent arguments being made by both sides (quite a rarity on this site), I'm swayed by the points David Eppstein and Arthur Rubin have raised. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)