Talk:List of second-generation mathematicians
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Inclusion Criteria
editPer the tag "This list has no precise inclusion criteria". Implicit in the table is that both mathematicians in a row must be distinguished enough to have material for the 'Notable for' column. For the seed entries, notable means either winning a well-known prize, having proved a well-known result, introducing a major concept (e.g. Moving frame, Noetherian chain condition), or being the founder of a major subfield of math (e.g. Non-Euclidean Geometry, Exterior Algebra). For these seed entries, the prizes and theorems are notable enough to have wikipedia articles of their own, and the concepts and subfields have articles noting them as a primary originator.
Not sure if this more detailed criteria should be spelled out in detail in the article itself. Citrus Lover (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- What is the problem with the criteria being "being in Wikipedia and having contributed to mathematics?"--ReyHahn (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- My motivation for creating the page was seeing lists of father-son pairs who both won a Nobel prize. So my initial list was top-notch mathematicians, roughly Nobel-class. But there's no reason the criteria couldn't be broadened. Citrus Lover (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Do list articles need to have a References section?
editIn this list article, citations are implicit in that each mathematician is a link to a wikipedia page. It seems redundant to add an explicit references section. Are there wikipedia guidelines on this? Citrus Lover (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- At the very least some references for the topic, for "second-generation mathematicians" being a topic of general interest in reliable sources, are needed. Fram (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)