Talk:Map germ
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|||||
| Mathematics rating: | Stub Class | Low Priority | Field: Topology | ||
| Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Please also add comments to suggest improvements to the article. | |||||
This is a technical definition, which I feel is of more use than the current article on germs. The current article on germs only consideres function germs, and does so from a rather strange viewpoint. This is mathematics, and not creative writing. I have written the defintion in a clear (to anyone that has studied mathematics) and succinct fashion. Clearly this article is difficult for a novice to access, but the only other alternative is to write the history of mathematics from why 1 + 1 = 2. The page does not need a reference. If you insist upon one, then my entry into mathworld will suffice:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MapGerm.html
The current article is too general, and not general enough - if that makes sense. I have written this article so that the article on A-equivalence makes sense.
Dharma6662000 (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- First, you didn't need to use a "hangon" tag - I didn't tag the article for deletion, merely improvement. Second, the "needs context" tag doesn't mean you need to add huge amounts of detail to lead into the article, just a couple of sentences to give the article a bit of context, something like "Map germs are a mathematical concept that describe..." and so on, before going into the mathematical nitty-gritty. Third, every article needs references (see WP:V), and the Mathworld one you've provided is ideal. I've added it to the article text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matticus78 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) What Matticus said. Also, recreating deleted content is generally considered a Bad Thing: that's why we have a deletion review process -- but for a speedy deletion, a well-phrased comment to the deleting admin can often clear things up.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I just say though, you guys are rather quick to delete articles. I was trying to get one sorted last night and you deleted while I was editing it. You could at least give it a couple of hours. All I'd done was click the "save page" button instead of the "show preview" button, and bam - it's was deleted. Dharma6662000 (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's the modus operandi of a lot of new page patrollers, to act fast - otherwise articles can get forgotten and left orphaned, empty or unsuitable for months before being removed or tagged for improvement. While this would not be a major problem with obviously good-faith contributions, it has in the past led to silly stuff and hoaxes getting left on WP for a long time, so every new article gets the same level of scrutiny (in theory). What you'll find a lot of editors do is draft new articles in a subpage of their own user space where NP patrollers won't touch it (see WP:SUBPAGE), and only post it to the article space when they're done. That's what I do anyway. ~Matticus UC 09:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
