Talk:Janko group

Break up

Would it be better to break this article up into four separate articles? Gene Ward Smith 22:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not a dab page

This is not a dab page; it is trying to be an article. See WP:MOSDAB. Since the page is clearly trying to be an article, with elements like images and a lead, why not just create the article, with a list of the four in See also, in addition to a dab page, correctly named as a dab page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it myself: converted this to an article, and restored Janko group (disambiguation). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think people want it to be both. At any rate, I made it a reasonable DAB now, but since there have been so much back and forth, I left the cleanup tag there. The problem is some articles refer to "the Janko groups". The Janko groups as abstract mathematical entities have more or less nothing to do with each other, but have a lot to do with each other historically. One feature they have is that there are only 4 of them, rather than 26, so people feel more comfortable pointing to them, rather than pariah groups or simple sporadic groups, especially to contrast the old mathieu groups (which *is* an article, not a dab). I think dab is the right choice for the Janko groups, but we'll see. JackSchmidt (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

SG asked, "what was wrong with the article?" I think the article itself was just fine, though it might not meet the notability guidelines. Each group individually does: at least one, if not two, have entire books about them, which is almost unheard of for single mathematical groups.

I myself wouldn't have changed it from article to dab, but I suspect the editor's motivations were two-fold: something along the lines of "a list of unrelated things with the same name" not being a good topic for an article, and secondly, the only important incoming link is from a FA candidate-candidate and goes to the "(disambiguation)" version.

The article was structured fine, and probably would survive AfD since "janko groups" gets a lot of hits both on google and in Mathematical Reviews. If anything, the article could have simply contrasted the four janko groups which is really quite often done in reliable sources. Heck, maybe they are notable merely for being contrasted so often!

Of course, I don't think it is worth changing it from dab to article, either. I think the energy should go to the individual articles or to sporadic groups, etc. JackSchmidt (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Janko group. 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/20130626081216/http://www.mathematik.uni-mainz.de/arbeitsgruppen/gruppentheorie/held/klassifi.pdf to http://www.mathematik.uni-mainz.de/arbeitsgruppen/gruppentheorie/held/klassifi.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)