Talk:Fibrations of graphs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from https://vigna.di.unimi.it/fibrations/. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2026030210012401. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en  wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because I (the author of the new Wikipedia page, Vigna) am the author of the original page and I'm translating it to Wikipedia.
WikiProject Mathematics discussion
As a reference for future editors, see thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Attention needed at Fibrations of graphs (permalink) for some discussion about this article. Zeibgeist (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Coming here from that discussion:
- I changed the banner up top from {{cleanup rewrite}} to {{more citations needed}}. While there might be phrasing choices here and there that could be improved, I don't think the tone is too far from encyclopedic. Rather, the main issue with the text is that it seems under-cited. When material is well-organized, there's usually at least ~1 citation per paragraph; this is not a box to check off for its own sake outside of certain corners of Wikipedia like WP:DYK, but instead a sign that each idea is properly attributed.
- Citations to anything the size of a book should include some indication of where in the book the relevant information can be found: a page number or range, a section number, a theorem number, etc. When a book is cited only once in an article, the
|pages=or|at=parameters of {{cite book}} are useful. When multiple different passages of the same book are cited, well, there's no universally agreed-upon way to handle that. - Also, there's a lot of bold text, which is somewhat out of line with Wikipedia style. Generally, bolding is reserved for the name of the subject and prominent appearances in the text of things that redirect to the article. Italics are preferred when introducing technical terms. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the input; I agree that that is a more appropriate tag. Vigna, is this something you can action? Wikipedia has strict verifiability requirements so that readers can identify the source of all the information in the article, as Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction described above. Are you able to add citations for the unsourced paragraphs throughout the article? Zeibgeist (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, no problem. I'll also make Italic the new terms. That's actually the mathematical standard, but I saw a lot of pages using bold. Vigna (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- BTW, I consistently thought you were suggesting the "Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction" as a well-written mathematical page, which I couldn't find. Not the most UI-friendly handle 😂. Vigna (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, no problem. I'll also make Italic the new terms. That's actually the mathematical standard, but I saw a lot of pages using bold. Vigna (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the input; I agree that that is a more appropriate tag. Vigna, is this something you can action? Wikipedia has strict verifiability requirements so that readers can identify the source of all the information in the article, as Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction described above. Are you able to add citations for the unsourced paragraphs throughout the article? Zeibgeist (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)