# Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Collaboration of the Month

## Welcome to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Month!

This page is designed to help choose a Mathematics Collaboration of the Month. This is a specific mathematics-related topic which either has no article, a basic stub page, or needs major revision. The aim is to have a featured-standard article by the end of the month, from widespread cooperative editing.

The project aims to fill gaps in Wikipedia, to give users a focus and to give us all something to be proud of. Any registered user can nominate an article and can vote for the nominated articles. Every month, the article with the highest number of votes will promoted, as long as it has at least four votes.

### Algebraic number theory

One of only three top-priority stub-class math articles (it currently consists of one paragraph). Algebraic number theory has a rich and important history that is not discussed, and which many users could contribute to.

1. Nominate. RobHar 20:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Jakob.scholbach 10:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Nominate. Damien Karras (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
4. I support Indeed123 (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

## Participants

• Please put your username here if you wish to participate and be contacted when the Math CotM changes.
• You do not need to be a participant to nominate articles or vote. Any registered user can vote.
1. Meekohi
2. Sr13 (T|C)
3. Hippasus the Younger
4. Hirak 99
5. James S.
6. User:Cronholm144
7. Leland McInnes
8. Messagetolove
9. JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits)
10. Simxp
11. User:DonkeyKong64 (Not very active, but would like to help on occasion)
12. Eric Herboso
13. User:Geometry guy
14. Tompw (talk) (review)
15. Iotha
16. Ultimablah (New to this, inexperienced, willing to learn from this)
17. SpeedOfDarkness(Recent Math graduate and love groups and algebra)
18. User:Petman3000
19. Timothy Rias
20. Ajk91
21. Akvilas Bachelor, heading towards PhD. Primary interest: Numerics.
22. Imperat§ r(Talk) 00:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
23. Cricket_boy27 Maths is my best Subject
24. ${\displaystyle \int _{-\infty }^{+\infty }}$Warren Leywon ${\displaystyle d}$(feel free to talk)${\displaystyle \approx }$ This user has developed a side interest in mathematics.
 ${\displaystyle \textstyle {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}\,\;}$ This user partially participates in the Mathematics Collaboration of the Month.

## Userboxes

Participants may wish to add a userbox to their user page using {{User MathematicsCOTM}}.

## Selecting the next Collaboration of the Month

### Nominations

• How to nominate an article
• If the page you are nominating already exists, please add {{MathCOTM}} to the top of its talk page.
• Considerations for nominations
• Please only nominate articles which fit one or more of the following guidelines:
• The article does not currently exist.
• The article is 2 paragraphs or less.
• The article is 1000 characters or less.
• The article is in poor condition, and likely needs to be rewritten or extensively revised.
• For non-stubs, submitting the article to pages needing attention, cleanup, or peer review may be more appropriate.
• Consider whether the wider community easily contribute to the article or only a small number of people will know about.
• Giving reasons as to why an article should become the COTM may assist others in casting their vote. If you have a to-do list feel free to include it.

### Voting

• Only registered users should vote.
• Please vote for as many of the following candidates as you like.
• To enter your votes, simply edit the appropriate sections and insert a new line with "# ~~~~". This will add your username and a time stamp in a new numbered list item.
• Please add only support votes. Opposing votes will not affect the result, as the winner is simply the one with the most support votes (see approval voting).
• Voting for an article should express a willingness to contribute to improving the article if it is selected.
• It is helpful if nominators initiate the voting by adding their vote to the nominated article.

## Candidates

• Add new nominations to the bottom of the page.
• Candidates are not usually promoted until they have received more than three votes.
• If the current collaboration is no longer active, or has been running longer than a month, then the first candidate to receive more than three votes will generally be promoted.

### Plate trick

See rough stub at User:C S/todo/draft9. This should be a really cool article to work on. There's a lot of potential for fun, including photos of famous mathematicians we can get to do the plate trick for us. ^_^ --C S (Talk) 00:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

1. C S (Talk) 00:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Recommend inclusion into extant article orientation entanglement. Although I must say that I never found the plate trick to be an especially convincing illustration. Silly rabbit 13:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

### Shape

This article is in poor shape! There are generally two mathematical uses of the term, a geometric shape: triangle, square, ... and a a discription of the shape of an object. Its a vital article, however I think that status refers to the former meaning whilst the article describes the latter.

1. Salix alba (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2. --pbroks13talk? 02:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

### Duality (mathematics)

This is more of a disambiguation list at the moment, but I think that the topic holds out a promise for one of the core encyclopaedic articles.

1. Nominate. Arcfrk 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes, this is one of the most beautiful concepts in mathematics. It deserves a real article.—PaulTanenbaum 01:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Although Links are central to knot theory, they are hardly discussed in the knot theory article and there's hardly any content on its own page.

1. Nominate. Jkasd 00:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
2. I'll second it; usually, the link's pretty interesting, and there's a lot of potential help available. Imperat§ r(Talk) 00:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

### Topological space

Or maybe even Topology. The improvements made to the Group Theory and related articles were of great help to me and I would like to see the same made to this important area of mathematics. Damien Karras (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nominate --Point-set topologist (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

### Field (mathematics)

Like group (mathematics) (a previous COTM), a core article in abstract algebra and mathematics throughout. (Top importance, currrently at Start-level). Massive improvement is sorely needed. Collaboration of the Month seems like a good institution for this.

1. Nominate Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

### Pythagoras' Theorem

I'm new and fairly young. I know this page does not meet any of the guidelines, but as a young user, i am constantly being disappointed by the lack of Material that can be easily understood. So i wish for their to be a Sub-heading added to this topic That will allow Young-users to fully undertand this theorem as it is very crucial to their learning. If I am successful then i will continue to make Wikipedia a place that can be Used by both Young and Old alike. So please make Wikipedia a better place for all and vote Pythagoras' Theorem

While I wholeheartedly agree with your wish that material should be understandable, I think this article is one of the better examples of what WP can do. Also, WP can not be a textbook that explains every bit. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You so Much. I agree with you that it can't explain everything, but as least make it so it gives young readers a chance to understand. So i ask that another part be added to this Article which explains the Theorem in a way that you don't have to be Einstein to Understand cricket_boy27 6th November 2008

I don't know how old you are, but you will not be able to learn maths without a book and/or a teacher. WP is not, and cannot be, a replacement for either. (BTW, I'm not Einstein either, and I think the article is understandable).Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It can't be a replacement for either, but it can certainly meet the standards of accessibility set by other encyclopedias. Kevin Baastalk 18:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
How about "The pythagorean theorem is a relation between the three sides of a right triangle. The relation is: The square of the hypotenuse (the longest side) is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides. Or, put in mathematical notation, c2 = a2 + b2, where "c" is the length of the hypotenuse, and "a" and "b" are the lengths of the other two sides." That's the pythagorean theorem in three simple plain english sentences that require no special knowledge. I.e. that is layman's terms. The theorem can not be stated any more plainly. To understand what is written, you just need to have a basic third grade reading level and know how to add and square numbers. And you certainly don't have to be einstien to do that. If you don't know what a right triangle is, you can click on the link to find out. I don't see how that can be made any more clear.
Compare the sentence structure of the above with the following for Newton's second law of motion: "Newton's second law of motion is a relation, between force, mass, and acceleration. The relation is: The net force applied on an object is equal to the mass of the object times the net acceleration of the object. Or, put in mathematical notation, F = ma, where "F" is force, "m" is mass, and "a" is acceleration." Notice the syntax is exactly the same as above. And the definition consists of exactly three things:
1. a simple equation relating some variables.
2. a connection of the variables in the equation to real-world things.
3. a name for the relationship defined by 1. and 2.
If you remove any one of those three things you no longer have (formal) "physics". (the 3rd, naming, is essential for communication.) Thus, if you can't read and comprehend a few simple sentences that are nothing less and nothing more than those three things, then you can't understand physics, at all. I.e. you can't reason about the world around you. Formally, that is. And that's what mathematics is: formal operational reasoning.
So while I understand (and share) your concern that mathematics articles often lack accessibility, I am quite surprised that you picked this one, which is about as accessible as you can get. The part that you don't have to be einstein to understand is the introduction. Followed by the "In formulae" which just restates the introduction formally. (puts it in mathematical notation.) The rest (with the except of the proof section, which is always an advanced topic) is not even math. It's just history and other stuff. Like reading a story. While I applaud your goal (and share your criticism in general), I think you could have picked something more representative of the shortcomings of wikipedia math articles. Kevin Baastalk 18:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

### Discrete mathematics

Like Algebraic number theory, one of the only three top-priority stub-class math articles. If we deem the discrete mathematics so important as to give it its own portal, then does it make sense that the article should remain a stub? Discrete mathematics is listed as one of the 8 major topics of mathematics on the mathematics portal. The article, unfortunately, currently only serves as an introduction and a list.

'Discrete mathematics' is a broad term - it shouldn't be difficult to expand on the article. Its subjects are fascinating and give an entirely new perspective of mathematics for those (and this category seems to include many) who have only been acquainted with mathematics as algebra and geometry. Leon math (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Nominate 209.173.75.72 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Nominate - with a little skepticism: it is rather discursive so it would seem kind of odd to me to be a very in-depth article. If it were just set theory or combinatorics, then yeah, one could write a cogent body. But the only way i can picture this article being longer is by being a disparate collection of summaries of the major subtopics. Which would make it more of a portal or an elaborate table of contents than anything else. Kevin Baastalk 19:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

### Fibre bundle

Although article has lots of content, it is not of good quality. In particular, it contains many incorrect statements quite frequently (lots of criticizm on talk by several editors). I think that some improvement there is desperately needed. PST (Point-set topologist)