Category talk:Mathematics stubs

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles

Stub sorting

This category is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting, an attempt to bring some sort of order to Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to improve/expand the articles containing this stub notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Stub sortingWikipedia:WikiProject Stub sortingTemplate:WikiProject Stub sortingStub sorting articles

Former Category renaming[edit]

This category was previously known as Category: Math stubs. It was listed for renaming on March 22, 2005. The following discussion supported the renaming (please do not modify).

Category: Math stubs also seems wrong, for two reasons. Firstly, "Math" is a very Americocentric abbreviation (the rest of the English speaking world uses "Maths", as there is no such thing as a mathematic). Secon, it should have the full name (Category: Mathematics stubs) anyway. Grutness|^hello? 02:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

agree. move to category:Mathematics stubs Thryduulf 08:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support, rename Category:Mathematics stubs. -- Lochaber 09:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support rename. James F. (talk) 12:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support. Bah! "Math". <shakes head> zoney ♣ talk 12:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support Surely! MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support. Mgm|^(talk) 12:33, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Confusing logo[edit]

I wrote a math stub, and it put e^{i \pi} in front where it said that it was a stub. This could get confusing if you have written a stub with an equation and then you are wondering where the e came from! can the logo be put in a box (like border) or something so that it does not look like regular text?daviddoria (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overestimation of stubs[edit]

Several times I have seen articles classified as stubs that had multiple refs and multiple sections. Each word is a separate link, by the way. These examples came from a tiny section of the first page. If I were a member of the Mathematics project, I'd reassess all these so we'd know how many stubs we really have. That said, I don't know what the standards are and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Thoughts?--Rmky87 (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]