Talk:Linear function (calculus)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed Transwiki

This looks great, but it looks like it is more suited to Wikiversity. Is it okay if I transwiki it there? Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 18:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --Lfahlberg (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC) As i wrote and already had a discussion with citrus..., the article Linear function is absolutely incorrect. Its contents are (a) wrong, the definition is wrong and IT (b) completely duplicates the correct article on that subject which is Linear mapping. Also, several persons commented on this on the talk page on this page, but the person who wrote it is adamant that he is correct. So i chose what i thought would be a non-confrontational way to correct this.

Apparently i was wrong. It is clear to me confrontations of this kind are sop at wikipedia. No one bothers to read what I write or check anything. I do not want such confrontations. . Lfahlberg (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC) edited Lfahlberg (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

First fix Linear function page

I had just written a whole page here explaining the creation of this page and it got erased. Dang. Here is short version.

1. Why is this style more suited to Wikiversity? What about it is not proper Wikipedia?

1. I do not want to write pages for something that doesn't get read.
2. This is readable material written for an average person who wants to understand not for a "versity".
3. The math pages in wikipedia are mainly written by mathematicians for mathematicians. I do not think that is the purpose of an encyclopedia.
4. I specifically read that Wikipedia Math Project wanted pages with more examples Apparently this is not true.

2. The content at Linear function is incorrect. The information in that article is properly located at Linear mapping. A linear function is defined as it is on this page.

So the Linear function page should be changed to the correct definition. Lfahlberg (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In this situation, "correctness" seems to be in the eye of the beholder. The content at Linear function is not incorrect and the usage that you have given on this page is very common and these two points of view are not compatible ... that's life. I find it very annoying that year after year I have to tell my students that what they have been "taught" is a linear function is in fact not linear and the proper definition is .... This I can do in a classroom, but it is out of place here on Wikipedia. An encyclopedia reports on information, it does not judge the correctness of that information.

A fairly strong case can be made that what you have written here is covered in the Linear equation article without the use of the misnomer that you are insisting on. This could be the basis of a speedy deletion. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of speedy deletion request - explanation

I have removed the speedy deletion request attached to this article by Fox Wilson (talk · contribs). The justification given for speedy deletion was A10 "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic", citing the existing article linear function. This was incorrect because the concept described in this article does not duplicate the concept described at linear function. The two articles describe different topics, and the topic of this new article is closer to that of linear equation. There remains an open question about which article describes the correct usage of the term "linear function" - or, if both are correct in different contexts, how they should be distinguished. I don't have a firm view one way or the other on this question, but I am sure that speedy deletion is not an appropriate approach to resolving it. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)