 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article title
editSince Bruck published under the name "R. H. Bruck" and he is generally known that way in mathematics, should not that be the article title? I would insert a redirect from R. H. Bruck but that possibly should be the article with a redirect from Richard Bruck. Zaslav (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Irrelevancies?
editI deleted the following biographical information about Ryser:
- Ryser died on July 12, 1985 slightly over a week before he was scheduled to talk at the Groups and Geometry conference (July 20–24, 1985) held in honor of R.H. Bruck's retirement at the University of Wisconsin.
I think it belongs in the Ryser bio, if it is important enough, which I doubt. (As biographical info about either Bruck or Ryser, it is trivia.) Zaslav (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Trivia it may be, but it was a natural lead-in to Bruck's retirement conference information. To many geometers Bruck and Ryser are an inseparable duo. Ryser's death cast a pall over that conference that many of us still remember. This doesn't belong in Ryser's bio, as it would just be a statement about something he didn't get to do because he died (and there are lots of those things), but here it implies that his death had an impact on something that was important in Bruck's life. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Based on your analysis, I would say it definitely is a story about Ryser, not Bruck. As a bare statement of fact, it is not interesting; as casting a pall over the conference, it is interesting though not important enough for Bruck to go into what is essentially a stub. If there were a full article about Bruck instead of a stub, it would be different. I think I can still slip it in through the back door, though. Zaslav (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it doesn't seem to belong. I call this a stub because it is just a collection of miscellaneous facts. A "real" bio would discuss the contributions of Bruck. It could discuss why he and Ryser were thought of together, other than their single famous theorem and then it would make more sense to mention Ryser's death here.
- By the way, the Ryser article is also a mere stub and needs much filling out. Pop singers get 10 times the attention they deserve; important modern mathematicians get 1/10. Who will do something about it? Zaslav (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Based on your analysis, I would say it definitely is a story about Ryser, not Bruck. As a bare statement of fact, it is not interesting; as casting a pall over the conference, it is interesting though not important enough for Bruck to go into what is essentially a stub. If there were a full article about Bruck instead of a stub, it would be different. I think I can still slip it in through the back door, though. Zaslav (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)