# User talk:TakuyaMurata

See the page history to retrieve old talks.

## Category of bimodules

A tag has been placed on Category of bimodules, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

## Question on Japanese name

Hello, TakuyaMurata. In Yoshiharu Kohayakawa, what is the surname? Yolaf.TZ (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Never mind... It's Kohayakawa (here on the English-WP, sometimes the order of Japanese names is equal to what is on the Japanese-WP, and other time it's different). It confuses me. :D Yolaf.TZ (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

## Plans

I know that a few mathematics editors would like the WMF to take over. I don't think that's going to happen, and I doubt that you would like the result. First, I want to say that leaving mathematics to editors is not leaving it to "outsiders". That's leaving it to insiders. Second, the WMF usually takes on projects that are too complicated and too large for individual volunteers, or projects that must be done now and no volunteer is willing or able to do. Flow and VisualEditor both fall into the "too complicated and too large" category; mathematics rendering does not fall into either. Thirdly, historically, most math work has been done by volunteers. As a result of this history, the real question isn't merely a neutral "Why doesn't the WMF do this?" Instead, the real question is "Why doesn't the WMF take control away from the volunteers who have been doing this for years, regardless of what those volunteers say?"

As a practical matter, if the volunteers who have been working on math rendering all said that they do not wish to continue, and no others were willing to begin, then the WMF might eventually take it over. But the volunteers are still active, and therefore I do not expect the WMF to try to take the project away from them. I don't believe that the WMF has any formal opinion about how mathematics rendering ought to be done. But from the informal water cooler chat that I overhear, if they had to make a decision today, the result would probably be to kill MathJax and then do nothing else for a long while due to lack of resources and a belief that serving PNGs, while suboptimal, doesn't cause the site to crash or otherwise represent an emergency. Therefore this is my conclusion: if your ultimate goal is to keep MathJax, then your goal is also to encourage volunteers to support math rendering themselves, at least for the foreseeable future. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the reply, which I wasn't expecting. Nothing personal, but I don't think you have a understanding of the problem at all. Maybe it goes beyond your competence? For instance, the math rendering belongs to the category "too complicated and too large"; saying otherwise shows your lack of understanding. Why else do you think no one seems to be able to fix the broken system? The answer to the first question (why the WMF take-over) is because it is of interest to the WMF if it wants to keep the editors happy and attract the readers, the task that should not be left to the "outsider" volunteers. You said "I don't believe that the WMF has any formal opinion about how mathematics rendering ought to be done." and that's the problem I'm talking about. "No plan" is not a good plan. -- Taku (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that "take away MathJax and replace it with PNGs" a desirable plan? If the WMF takes over now, that is the most likely plan. Perhaps "no plan" would be preferable to that plan.
Math rendering does not belong to the category of "too complicated and too large" because it isn't. It might be too large for one person to do, part-time, in a couple of months, but it does not require a large team of engineers. As several editors have pointed out in these discussions, MathJax is added to websites all the time merely by inserting a couple of lines of code into the HTML.
Also, I have my doubts about how much the appearance of the mathematics articles (or their content) attract readers. The math geeks I know all prefer other sites, and the non-math geeks complain that Wikipedia's articles are incomprehensible. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I had a feeling that we would go nowhere; this reminds me of those endless tiring phone call to the call center. I and (presumably the others) would much prefer to deal with someone who is actually competent and can get something done (what I want is not complain but see some action). As for the concrete "plan", the math editor community has already comes up with one; it is up to the WMF to implement it or not (it's not something for the editors). The last part of your reply is most disturbing; I wish you are joking. Which other website are you talking? Wikipedia articles on math topics are read and edited rather heavily. It is embarrassing that Wikipedia has poor software support for math. Or so I thought, but I guess you don't share the same feeling. But maybe it really speaks the truth. You want to make Wikipedia less geeky and we're obstacles to achieve that. That's the truth isn't it? I wish I misunderstood your message. -- Taku (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I certainly don't want a "less geeky" encyclopedia. If WP:N were up to me, I'd be blowing up piles of articles about minor actors and individual television episodes and songs about which nothing little more can be said than "it was kind of popular for two weeks six years ago". Also, articles about allegedly important university professors that are sourced only to their employers' websites.
I will have to ask again for the names of favored math sites, since I don't remember them any longer. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ seems to be the most popular. It also depends on what your interests are, of course. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me. By "math", we was thinking of professional math. The site mathworld is a bit of joke as far as topics on professional-levels are concerned; it is the site for the general public (non-geeks.) I would view sites like encyclopedia of mathematics, or planetmath or nLab to be Wikipedia competitors on the math topics that are not of interest to the general public. Against those, Wikipedia tends to win, judging by the number of times Wikipedia articles are cited in the discussion sites like mathoverflow. Not having the updated software support for math can be considered complacent; I think someone should be responsible/accountable for this and, as I said, it is part of the job of the WMF. -- Taku (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hi Taku, I don't know if this interjection will help clear up confusion, or just create more, but I'll do my best.

Hope this helps, appreciate your work on helping wikipedia improve, talk to you later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and p.s. the correct goal for wikipedia methinks is to compete with planetmath et al, as our first priority, and then *expand* our capabilities and our feature-set, and *widen* our focus and our content-goals, so that we can also simultaneously and in addition, compete also with mathworld et al. (Someday we may even get so good and so broad that we can compete with cool-math.) But first things first, the initial goal of the process-iterations should be fixing up our planetmath-style features and our planetmath-style bugfixes. Once those are 90% done with no more low-hanging-fruit, future process-iterations can broaden our math-support so that we can effectively compete with mathworld, too. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
^^^^ This is exactly what you should read and take to heart. --Jorm (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Post-post-script, I also see from your userpage that you know Java and C and GoLang, so you know something about programming; I know some LaTeX and some Javascript and some PHP and some other languages that might be useful, if you decide to change tactics as I suggest above, I would be happy to help get you the ball rolling. I don't have time to become a full volunteer-math-dev, or a thousand-hour-quasi-compensated-volunteer-dev either, but as a heavy-math-article-reader it is in my own best interests to see the heavy-math-article-editors smiling and content. I'm happy to take a shot at "Fixing That Which Cannot[citation needed] Be Fixed" in the current codebase, in collaboration with you and the rest of the math-editors and math-devs already involved. Let me know if you want to discuss further, or whatever, when you return from your semi-break. Thanks for listening, talk to you later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

## In the news

I agree with you that In the news belongs at the top of the Main Page redesign, and have adjusted the design accordingly. Just a heads up, in case you'd like to see what it looks like. The Transhumanist 10:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)