Talk:Line graph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please convert the AASCI Art graphs to images. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.211.224.201 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

hi i dont like it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.230.150.7 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't the article isn't complete? Can you put a lot of definitions in it. I THANK YOU!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.119.29 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

you are talking a bout a diffrent line graph than what i want —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.157.24 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you could give some examples of the kind of line graphs you were looking for, we might be able to provide some links to information about them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This whole article looks busy. Cut short the unnecessary things (just address what is needed). Also remember that we should shoot this for a non-mathematician - that's one of the goals of Wikipedia. Also this article is missing important refs.

You need not have to write evry thing here after addressing the main points. Put the resposnsiblities to references.

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Please do not yell at me.

[edit] Reference style

Since this is a math article, I suggest putting the references in the standard mathematical format, e.g., names in first-last order. Since I can't do that with harvtxt, I ask someone who can to fix them. Thank you. Zaslav (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "the standard mathematical format" for citations, please supply a reliable source for your assertion that such a thing exists. I don't believe that it does. And in any case, I think we should be aiming for a style that's more consistent across Wikipedia as a whole rather than splitting it up into incompatible fiefdoms. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The source is reading 95+% of published math, and guidelines like (but not limited to) the AMS book on "Math Into Type" and the format guidelines provided by journals. This is hardly a secret. Maybe "standard" is ambiguous; change it to "usual". The rest of what you say is a matter of preference. I understood the Wikipedia guidelines to suggest following the format usual in each field as a perfectly viable alternative to following the "standard" Wikipedia format. If you disagree, please provide a source. Zaslav (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I think it's worth a lot of work, either way. I simply dislike the "last-first" name format and I claim it's legitimate not to use it in Wikipedia math articles. If you must change things, it's your lookout. Zaslav (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)