Talk:Accelerated Math

Notes

I based a lot of content on another webpage, so I'll be revising it as I find errors and as I double-check the information with the company's webpage. Chris53516 18:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for this product and noticed that it is no longer available on the Renaissance Learning website. I wonder if it was sold to another company or just dropped. 2600:6C40:7D00:8D7:7DA5:77AA:636F:2A93 (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Page title

This page seems like a big advertisement for a software that isn't unique in purpose and named to take up article space that will pull in searches by potential customers.--MCrawford 07:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If necessary, it could always be merged BACK into the article of the company that makes it (Renaissance Learning), and a redirect set here. --JohnDBuell 12:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make the page as unbiased as I could. What about it seems like an advertisement? I think the Renaissance article would be too long if the Accelerated Math information were added to it. It would also lead me to think we should do the same for the other software, but that doesn't seem like a good idea either since it would only result in a very bulky page. Perhaps we should revise this page first. Chris53516 13:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My concern is not so much about writing an article regarding the software, but the fact that it takes up name space for a common noun topic that would interest many (including me). For this reason, I feel merging with the company article seems reasonable.--MCrawford 20:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But what about Accelerated Reader or the STAR assessments? If there are individual articles for each of them, then they should be incorporated back into the Renaissance article in kind. As I said before, this would create an inconsistent and rather large article. Additionally, "Accelerated Math" is the name of the software. What exactly are you looking for that leads you to this article? Perhaps we should create a disambiguation page with whatever terms you were using and then create a new page called "Accelerated Math (software)" or something like that for the software. Would that work? Wikipedia has a category for educational software, which Accelerated Math is in, and I think the use of this page is fine as is. If you're looking for a particular topic on accelerated math curriculums or whatnot, then perhaps your search needs to be refined. Chris53516 21:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation isn't a bad idea either, but I'm with Chris on questioning the search results. "Accelerated Math" (with quotation marks) gives six out of the first ten matches on Google pointing in some way, shape or form to the software, and the results are very similar using an a9 search (which uses Windows Live Search for results). It may be easier to just include a dablink or redirect template at the top, with something like "This page discusses the software package from Renaissance Learning. For other uses of the term, see Accelerated Math (disambiguation)." A bit like the opening of the Chicago, Illinois page. --JohnDBuell 22:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am with John on this one, although I'm not sure what would appear on the disambiguation page. I am against moving this page. If we add a disambiguation page, what would be on it? Chris53516 13:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any other articles in Wikipedia that would be similar to "Accelerated Math" (e.g., searches on "accelerate math," "accelerate mathematics," "math acceleration," etc.). There really is no substance for a disambiguation page. I'm beginning to wonder why MCrawford wants to move/integrate this article and with what MCrawford would want to replace it. Chris53516 13:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How about using dablink and pointing to something to do with Mathematics as a curriculum? Then it could read "This page is about the software program from Renaissance Learning. For topics related to mathematics as a school curriculum, see (whatever)." --JohnDBuell 17:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested dablink

I would be okay with adding Mathematics education as a dablink with the words John used above. That is, "This page is about the software program from published by Renaissance Learning. For topics related to mathematics as a school curriculum, see (whatever) Mathematics education." (I don't like the word "program" because educators often equate that with curriculum, and these software tools are not curricula.) Chris53516 18:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Software "package?" Software "tool?" Just to make it clear that this is ONE of the products by the company.... --JohnDBuell 19:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Software is software is software. "Software" doesn't need another noun. Software. Common usage always places something with it, but it isn't necessary. If you insist, "computer software." "This page is about mathematics software published by Renaissance Learning. For topics related to mathematics in education, see Mathematics education." How's that version? Chris53516 20:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --JohnDBuell 20:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. Chris53516 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up

This issue was apparently rattling around the back of my head because I suddenly realized out of nowhere that the company probably has a copyright or trademark on the name. I looked at the company webpage for Accelerated Math and there it is--a trademark symbol next to the title. So I think leaving this article here is completely justified. No one else can use the name. I can understand if someone is looking for "accelerated" educational curricula, so I did a Google search for alternative uses of the term. I found one article about an accelerated math curriculum: Burris (2003) (html). I also found this page regarding JavaScript programming: Shiran (2000) (html). I think I'll post these on the page as "alternate uses of the term," or something like that. Chris53516 15:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We might have someone grumble about an internal article link in a dablink - I'm not sure if that fits in with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, but it works quite well, as far as I'm concerned! Well done. --JohnDBuell 17:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between a trademark and a registered trade mark (compare "Windows"TM with "Microsoft"R). This is the first and so means other people can certainly use the same words in a suitable context. --Henrygb 00:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Article cleanup

Note: Copied from User talk:JohnDBuell
Do you think the Accelerated Math page is too much like an advertisement? I hope it isn't, but since my sources tend to be the company webpage and their publications, it might sound like it. I think Accelerate Math, like Accelerated Reader, is in common enough usage to warrant an article, but I'm not sure. I would think that if we have a page on AR, we should have one on AM too. What do you think of all of this? Chris53516 16:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this myself, but I didn't want to do it unilaterally. We could list the AR/AM articles under Wikipedia:Cleanup and ask for a third party to review/revise the text. I also looked at Wikipedia:Request for Comment, but there's not really an ongoing dispute, as such, it just seems like we're agreeing that someone else could/should have a look at the text. If you agree, go ahead and list one or both! --JohnDBuell 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I found the "peerreview stub," which seems most appropriate. I'll use that. Chris53516 17:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the peer review stub usually go on the Talk page? Chris53516 19:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I should have said; in the middle of doing a couple of things at once here. Peer review request templates, featured article candidate templates, etc. all go on talk pages as general practice. --JohnDBuell 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Both Accelerated Math and Accelerated Reader look like publicity and I doubt whether they belong in a general encyclopedia. --Henrygb 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How would we put the AR and AM pages back into Renaissance Learning's article? I just think it would take up too much room. But if we want, where would it go? Under "Products"? Or should they have their own heading? Chris53516 13:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say back under Products with appropriate sub-headings, then set the two individual pages back to redirects. You might want to put the {{advert}} template on the front of both actual pages, and see if anyone comes and does some cleanup first. --JohnDBuell 16:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it warrants the {{advert}} template quite yet. Only a few people have given their opinions. That and I think we can change it so that it is less like an advertisement. We still haven't had any specific remarks on why it sounds like an ad so that it can be corrected. On another topic, I just found a handout that provides a brief overview of all of the current products (a paragraph each) that might be useful for adding content about other products to the main article if we choose to integrate AM and AR back. For instance, there's an intro to ReadNow and English in a Flash, two products that I don't know much about. It might be useful to at least say what each product is for. Chris53516 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead and add text about any other current/discontinued products at the main page, if you want. I'd say give this page and the AR page another week or so before applying any other templates or re-merging them. --JohnDBuell 18:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I listed some ideas about reintegrating the articles in the RLI article here. Chris53516 21:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Renaissance Learning

Please see the new version of Renaissance Learning. It's very long, and integrating all of the info on AR and AM would make it too long, IMO. See Talk:Renaissance Learning#Proposed sections. Chris53516 15:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We could combine AR and AM into one article, like I did with the STAR assessments. Chris53516 16:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If we removed the criticism section, which has no cited source, and the research section, we could merge this article with the Renaissance Learning article. I'm looking in to changing the Accelerated Reader article in the same way. Chris53516 13:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section is completely unreferenced and has been for a very long time. I have removed it due to its lack of a citation for its claim. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it again. I'm sure it won't be the last time it needed to be removed, either. Googol30 (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Accelerated Math. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061031211946/http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/85.pdf to http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/85.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060224222817/http://www.eschoolnews.com:80/resources/surveys/editorial/rca/sms2005/pdf/RCAsms2005.pdf to http://www.eschoolnews.com/resources/surveys/editorial/rca/sms2005/pdf/RCAsms2005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060915070329/http://digitalcommons.libraries.columbia.edu/dissertations/AAI3091233/ to http://digitalcommons.libraries.columbia.edu/dissertations/AAI3091233/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)