Flomenbom

RDF

Disambiguation pages like this are intended to list actual Wikipedia articles, not draft articles (or other material) in userspace. So a link to User:Flomenbom/RDF is not appropriate. But if and when you complete that draft and move it to an article at (for instance) Reduced Dimensions Forms, a link that article should of course be added to the DAB page. By the way I reverted your changes to the capitalisation of the sub-heads per MOS:DAB#Organizing long lists by subject. Best wishes, Ian Spackman (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
A Reply:
The article RDF contains a red link in "organizations". So, it can indeed have also a light blue link: User:Flomenbom/RDF. I will make this an article (during May, 2011), yet, the page User:Flomenbom/RDF is in a suitable form, and the information there is valuable.

If the information is already sufficiently developed to be valuable, then simply create the article and link that. You can either WP:Move the existing draft, or create the article and copy-paste the draft there. But DAB pages are not intended to link to user pages. Ian Spackman (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• A reply
  

In the page RDF there is a definition without a reference (RDF Group plc, an IT Company in the UK). Now, instead of just writing: "Reduced Dimensions Forms: canonical mechanisms for solving two-state trajectories", without a reference, I have included a reference that explains much better the meaning of Reduced Dimensions Forms. IT IS BASED ON A SCIENTIFIC PAPER I HAVE WRITTEN IN 2006: O. Flomenbom, and R. J. Silbey, Utilizing the information content in two-state trajectories, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 10907-10910 (2006). Since this paper was OK for PNAS, it must have the credentials appearing in the wiki\RDF page. As I have mentioned, I intend working on the article on Reduced Dimensions Forms, for the general public, during May 2011. Clearly, the page now (in the user definied area) explains much better about Reduced Dimensions Forms than a definition of a sentence. I will include the reference once again; please, do not delete the reference (it is absurd allowing a definition without a reference, and not allowing a definition with a link). OFLOMENBOM (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, for now I will restore the reference, but as a red-link to the article you presumably intend to create at Reduced Dimensions Forms. I have asked here for the experts in the matter of DAB pages to adjudicate. Best wishes, Ian Spackman (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase the response, WP:DAB specifies that disambiguation pages are designed to disambiguate articles, rather than user pages, external web pages, etc. Specifically, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) states: ‘Do not create links to user or wikiproject pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself.’ Ian Spackman (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the reason of the cited criteria in ARTICLES, since user pages are drafts. Still, in a page with a list of possible definitions for an initialism, where there are definitions without a link, the situation is different. Nevertheless, I agree having the definition just with a simple sentence, where during this month I will publish a WIKI article on Reduced Dimensions Forms.OFLOMENBOM (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

TeX

Hello.

Please notice that when you write \Sigma_{n=1}^N in TeX, it looks like this:

$\Sigma _{n=1}^{N}\,$

whereas when you write \sum_{n=1}^N, it looks like this:

$\sum _{n=1}^{N}\,$

The latter is standard usage. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I prefer using sigma. Plus, it saves place. PLUS: the most accurate form is cleary sigma.OFLOMENBOM (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Another TeX issue: <|r|> looks like this:

$<|r|>\,$

whereas \langle |r| \rangle looks like this:

$\langle |r|\rangle \,$

The latter is standard. See WP:MOSMATH. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)