There has been some interesting debate on the site about technical articles. There has been some (fairly heated) discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:FAC#Some_thoughts_from_an_FA-newbie (That discussion is mostly over, so best not to stir it up again). And more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Guideline_status_restored And the section immediately below it. I found it ironic that when I discussed a particular article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CBM#Mathematics_article_I_found_difficult The edit that was made to make the article more accessible (to me, at least), was reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture&diff=prev&oldid=414368190 With the edit summary: "It's a boundary not a surface--but no need to put in the lede, people can follow the link)". Unfortunately, following the link didn't really help me. "In mathematics, a 3-manifold is a 3-dimensional manifold. The topological, piecewise-linear, and smooth categories are all equivalent in three dimensions, so little distinction is made in whether we are dealing with say, topological 3-manifolds, or smooth 3-manifolds." I found the edit made to the original article much clearer, in that it said that the 3-sphere is the "the surface of the [[unit ball]] in four-dimensional space." I suppose adding the word "informally" might soothe mathematicians who insist on precise language. Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l