Talk:Doctrine (mathematics)

Sourcing/Notability

Currently, there are 2 sources. Neither are reliable. Therefore, there are zero reliable which go in-depth about this subject to show that it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

TakuyaMurata - you are now in violation of WP:4RR, might I suggest you self-revert before further action is taken? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, I asked you to make a case for your edit, which you didn’t. So, it seems it is you who are being disruptive. You are not making the case for why the two sources listed at References are unreliable. Note they were not wiki. Also, you have failed to provide any reasoning as to why the topic is non-notable. After you make valid cases, I don’t object to having tags. —- Taku (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I see no evidence that this is a notable subject per WP:GNG. Once the notability tag has placed, the onus is on you to show it is notable per policies and guidelines, not for the person placing the tag to show it is non-notable. John B123 (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Generally, the justification for the notability is given by the sources listed at the reference section (not further reading section). So, you actually need to explain why the sources do not justify the notability. For example, Lawvere is fairly prominent in this particular field so his work already gives good enough evidence. If you (or someone else) disagree, then they need to explain why. —- Taku (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

As already stated, gving the title of a book does not satisfy the notability requirements, far more specific evidence is required. In any case as Lawvere is given as one of the inventors in the article text their works would be considered WP:PRIMARY. John B123 (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

The notion is not originally due to Lawvere (it’s due to Beck). So I don’t think the primary applies here. Also, I have added one more ref by other authors. Further, to assess the notability, it is usually common and reliable to see whether the term in question appears in titles of papers. The question is on the depth of the coverage in literature. Why do you think the topic is no-notable despite the sources listed in the article? You do actually need to explain that (like the coverage seems not extensive enough to you). —- Taku (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, I should add that the guideline is only a guideline: the question is whether we editors feel the topic is notable or not. The guideline is only here to help us editors. So that’s why it matters why you believe the topic is not notable, and it doesn’t really work if you can’t make an argument as to why the topic is non-notable. —- Taku (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

As I said before, the burden is for you to demonstrate the subject is notable not the other way around. Giving the titles of 3 offline books/papers does not demonstrate notability.

On a separate note, per WP:BURDEN you need to add inline citations to the article content following your restoration of the deleted text. John B123 (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes and I’m saying the references given in the article should be enough. If you believe otherwise, then it is your turn to argue why. For example, offline sources are perfectly valid ways to show the notability (and those sources are about the topic of this article). Do you mean to claim the sources are unrelated? I am not disputing that the article should have more inline citations, but that’s a different matter. Also, I simply undid the merger so there isn’t any burden to justify the undeletion, since the text wasn’t deleted in any ways. —- Taku (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

This blog post [1], while cannot be used as a reference, also gives a good evidence for the notability for me. —- Taku (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I revered your edit (about tags) three times so it’s within the rule. —- Taku (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems like the topic is notable based on a quick look for sources. The content however seems dubious. Note the following ref contradicts content which I deleted.

• Zöberlein, Volker. "Doctrines on 2-categories." Mathematische Zeitschrift 148 (1976): 267-279.

Johnjbarton (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I would probably not say the deleted content was dubious. Probably a variant/different approach. But it was indeed unreferenced so simply deleting it is a valid option, I suppose. Just for the record, my only problem was with the claims that the topic is non-notable and the sources (which ones again??) are not reliable. The claims didn’t make sense; that’s all. —- Taku (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Notability

Hi. Since the editing and discussion have died down somehow, I now propose that we remove the notability tag, as the above seems to indicate the topic is notable and also so far no specific reason to doubt the notability has been presented. —- Taku (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC) @Onel5969: pinging the editor who put the tag initially.

Oppose strongly. You're still trying to reverse things. It's up to you to demonstrate the topic is notable, not the other way around. I don't see the above seems to indicate the topic is notable at all. --John B123 (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

To repeat, my position is that the article (and the discussion in the previous section) already show the notability or rather there isn't a genuine concern on notability; e.g., you have failed to present any reason to doubt the notability when asked repeatedly. Note the notability tag means there is a doubt on the notability NOT that the article can be further developed to show the notability. That is, nothing more is needed to remove the tag, although more can certainly be done to develop the article. Since I don't see anything more to do, I can't do anything further. Anyway, your position is clear (and so I am not going to do anything about the tag). -- Taku (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Notability of this topic has been discussed and multiple editors agree that it is notable. I have removed the tag. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Multiple independent secondary sources demonstrate the notability of the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tito Omburo (talk • contribs) 11:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe we have sufficient consensus to overrule one editor's objection? —- Taku (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the question of notability is pretty clear-cut. But I also second JBL's question why this isn't just covered in the 2-categories page? (I suspect this has a ready answer, but I think it might be worth spelling it out on talk somewhere.) Tito Omburo (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I responded to JBL's question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Doctrine_(mathematics). There is some relation for sure but I think the topic is clearly distinct enough. A 2-category is a generalization of a category, while a doctrine is a notion appearing in the field of algebraic theories. It’s like we have two articles implicit function theorem and inverse function theorem even though they are essentially the same result. The distinction is enough for separate articles (at least according to my understanding); mathematically, there might not be a distinction but there is a distinction in context (like implicit vs inverse). —- Taku (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion the article needs more inline sources and corresponding content. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

100%, but that’s unrelated to the question on the notability of the topic itself, which is a matter for editors to judge and decide on. There are at least two editors who think the notability is clear so that should be enough to remove the tag (but I will wait a bit more.) —- Taku (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC) So I have just removed the tag. -- Taku (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree with JayBeeEll that you are not making a serious effort to understand the objections of other people. Multiple editors have told you that just listing books/papers is not sufficient to show notability per WP:GNG and that you need to add inline citations to the body of the text to show in depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Until that is satisfied the tag should remain. --John B123 (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

As I said in the talkpage in the project, the notability of the topic is independent of the content of the article (what matters is the coverage outside Wikipedia). I don’t think JBL is objecting to removing the notability tag; the user is merely suggesting the article can be developed and I didn’t disagree with that. Currently you are the only editor who explicitly stated the notability tag must be placed. So the consensus for the removal is rather clear. “Multiple editors have told you that just listing books/papers is not sufficient” for notability. Who?? Can you name actual users? It seems you’re the only one; one isn’t multiple. —- Taku (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

You seem to see only what suits you. Currently you are the only editor who explicitly stated the notability tag must be placed. Not so: Onel5969 And there are zero in-depth sources listed, so GNG is not proven, making that tag apt as well.

Can you name actual users? It seems you’re the only one; one isn’t multiple. Again not so: Onel5969 Listing a book, is not a valid reference either. E.g. simply putting "Encyclopedia Brittanica" as a source doesn't qualify; Johnjbarton I guess if you added reliable references to the article then the case for the tag would evaporate (by your own admission [2] sources in Further reading are not references); JBL Zero people are asking you to make the list "Further reading" longer; multiple people are asking you to create a function F from "content in the article" to "reliable sources" with the property that for each statement X, F(X) is a reliable source that supports X. --John B123 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

First, Onel5969's old comment is probably not relevant; for example, "zero in-depth sources" isn't simply true at least now. If he (or she) still believes their concern isn't addressed in the current state, then they need to reiterate their position. As for JBL, as said, I don't think he was commenting on the matter of notability. So, it's irrelevant to settling the notability question. If some editor thinks my assessment that you're the only editor who has doubt about the notability, then they can chime in. -- Taku (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you a politician in the world outside Wikipedia? You seem adept at skirting round the issue and moulding things to reinforce your viewpoint. I think what JBL was saying was that if you added references then the question of notability would no longer be an issue. That is in essence what myself and Onel5969 were telling you from the start. If you had simply done that when all this arose then the problem would have been resolved, but instead you argued against it in 3 separate locations (see WP:FORUMSHOPPING) and let others add the references to establish notability. Going back even further, if you had complied with WP:V, one of the pillars of Wikipedia, when changing the redirect to an article, then none of this would have occurred. For clarity, in my view notability has now been established by other editors not by your smoke and mirror arguments. --John B123 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@John B123 I am sympathetic to your view that this topic is not suitable for a page in the encyclopedia but continuing this personal line of attack is not appropriate. Please nominate the article for deletion if you believe it should never have been created. Based on the feedback here I guess the best result would be merge so I suggest including possible merge targets in your nomination. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton:I feel my comments are justified, AGF can only be pushed so far. (I could produce a list of reasons/examples for my comments but this isn't an appropriate venue). Back to the article. My level of education in maths stopped at calculus whilst studying for my ONC. Since then my interaction with maths has been more applied than pure and latterly I've used specialist computer programmes to carry out the maths. I mentioned this for perspective, my level of maths is probably higher than many Wikipedia readers yet I don't feel I have enough knowledge about maths to determine if the subject deserves an article from the maths point of view. I became involved with this article through WP:NPP. The article 'as was' was unreferenced so showed no indication of meeting GNG which justified the notability tag. The article has since been improved by yourself and others and, in my opinion, the references added show the article now demonstrates compliance with the criteria of GNG. If those with a greater knowledge of maths have doubts about the article and think it should be merged then that's a discussion I don't feel qualified to enter into.

On a more general note, there seem to be a number of maths articles created recently that are far too technical for the average reader and read like a textbook. Regards. John B123 (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I know you are unhappy with the events, but I guess further discussion will not change anything. It's unfortunate that we have another lame article, but we should focus on what we can do rather than lament what we cannot. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I still maintain that there seems to be a confusion about the meaning of a notability question/tag. A topic doesn’t become more notable if you add some stuff to the article. The topic of a very poorly written article can be very notable, while the topic of a meticulously cited article can be quite non-notable. Especially editors behaviors, which you seem to be more concerned with, are completely unrelated to the notability. Please see my comment below too. To repeat, it is actually important to settle the notability issue before you develop the article; that’s part of why I refrained from editing the article (and added a bit after the tag was removed). Taku (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The text of the notability tag is The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. ie The article may not be notable and invites editors to add citations to demonstrate notability. It does not say the article is not notable. Unfortunately the text is condensed to the first sentence when the tag is within {{multiple issues}}.

Yes it is pointless trying to develop a non-notable article. Going back to basics (see Help:Your first article) the article creator should establish the topic is notable by finding independent reliable sources with indepth coverage before creating the article. When creating the article citations should be added as you go. Although the advice to add citations as you go is given to satisfy WP:V, it will also demonstrate notability. Following this procedure helps avoid discussions such as this.

Looking at other articles you have created, you might find Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK of interest. John B123 (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I should mention that there is a stylistic difference: many Wikipedia articles use inline citations, while math articles tend to use general references (a list of works). For the notability, the latter is sufficient, as a consensus among math editors (if the works are quite broad, you need to tell specific locations, like page numbers or chapter numbers, but if the works are specifically about the topic, you don’t need to specify specific locations.) A crucial point of the wording of the tag is that the tag isn’t asking to rewrite the article to show notability; all that matter are whether there exist reliable sources supporting the notability.

Also, your emphasis on my responsibility feels quite odd. A Wikipedia article doesn’t have an author so no one is responsible for it. So, it doesn’t really matter editor A put what or editor B put what. I am not the creator of this article but if I were, it still isn’t my responsibility (as no one is responsible). Finally, I’m actually sympathetic to a complain that math articles tend to be written textbook-y. This is simply a reflection of sources that are used. If you try to write in non-textbook ways, then you often risk doing the original research (and in fact, such efforts have often been reverted in the past). Asking me to solve problems that I don’t know have to solve doesn’t quite work; trying to help me would be helpful, though. —- Taku (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought you were the creator of the article. As you're not then my comments were unfounded.

Whilst there is no 'preferred' way of referencing, policies such as WP:V tend to be written as if online citations should be used. WP:V gives a list of situations where inline citations must be used, one of these is material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged. Arguably this applies to a lot of the content of Wikipedia. Further on it states any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed. Taken to extreme, articles that use general references could be blanked. One of the criteria for 'good articles' is that inline citations are used. My personal objection to general references is that if you come across something in an article you feel is dubious you may have to trawl through several books to find if the text is correct.

Writing maths or other technical articles is a challenge. Perhaps one of the fundamental problems is that the sources are written for readers with a more advanced knowledge of maths than the average Wikipedia reader. As you point out, rewording in layman's terms may lead to claims of WP:OR. Having reread Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable I'm not sure how practical it would be to follow the advice when writing a maths article. Perhaps this is something better discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics.

With regard to articles being textbook-like, textbooks tend to use 1st person plural (eg if we take....) whereas encyclopedic articles usually use impersonal language (if....). Writing without personal pronouns would make an article less textbook like. Textbooks also seem to have their own style of writing such as starting sentences with Let ..... Writing in a different style would also help make an article look less like a textbook extract. John B123 (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I should have said that typically for math articles, general reference is a starting point or a primary reference; i.e., the reference that establishes the notability, the scope of the article, etc. As the article develops by mentioning more facts, of course, inline citations are needed. So you can say an article without inline citations is incomplete. Maybe you or Onel5969 wanted to indicate the article is incomplete and needs further development; the notability tag isn't for that. As for the writing style, yes, you are right there is a clash of styles; encyclopedic and scientific. At least I'm not aware of the general consensus on this matter (personally, I don't believe the encyclopedic style must prevail anytime since readers' expectations may be more important.) Taku (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

And it is actually important to settle the question of notability before the development of the article since if the topic is non-notable, then the article shouldn’t exist at all. As far as I can tell, no editor seems to be suggesting Wikipedia shouldn’t cover this topic perhaps except you (although you have so far failed to explain why). In short, the consensus is quite clear. —- Taku (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)