|This page is a proposal for a new Wikimedia Foundation Sister Project.|
|Status||Stale (could be re-opened)|
|Reason||Inactive since 2017. * Pppery * it has begun 19:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)|
|What is the proposed name for the project?||WikiProves|
What is the project purpose? What will be its scope? How would it benefit to be part of Wikimedia?
|The free encyclopedia of provements for all theorems, lemmas and other propositions from all fields of study|
|How many wikis?
Will there be many language versions or just on one multilingual wiki?
|It would be better to have many language versions (like on Wikipedia)|
|How many languages?
Is the project going to be in one language or in many?
|The more the better|
|Proposed project website address||wikiproves.com (.org, .net, .ru) Available now: wikiproves.ru|
|Proposed logo for the project||Black square symbolizes the end of a provement. Q.E.D is a latin expression represents the end of a provement.|
|Proposed interwiki prefix for the project||wp:|
If the project requires any new features that the MediaWiki software currently doesn't have, please describe in detail. Are additional MediaWiki extensions needed for the project?
|Math formulas support. Although I think this is not a special technical requirement|
|Development wiki||wikiproves.ru (Russian language) (90+ provements)|
|Interested participants||1. CMTV|
There are lots of different propositions. You can find them in books, in scholl (university), in Wikipedia. Everywhere. And I think that is the main reason why we should pick them up in one place.
The important thing is that there have to be a provement for most of propositions. But the problem is that sometimes they are big, difficult, inarticulate or missing at all! It would be really cool to give simple (or at least understandable) provements to such propositions.
And that is how I came up with an idea of such an encyclopedia.
- A lot of theorems, lemmas and propositions to fill a wiki.
- Pupils and students are often looking for correct statement and simple provements.
- Fits the Wikimedia Foundation mission
- Widipedia and other sites have lots of articles about exact and natural sciences. Some of them have provements for propositions. But the style of provement block varies from article to article. In WikiProves all provements will have the same style.
- A possibility to see a provement for people who want to learn better.
- No problems with copyrights (almost everything in this sphere is a public domain).
A list of features which I use on wikiproves.ru now. I find them really useful. It is not like they have to be in WikiProves as a Wikimedia project, but I think they make WikiProves more attractive and handy for users.
Rules of writing provementsEdit
It is important for every article on WikiProves to be simple and evident. That is why I created some rules everyone have to follow when writing a provement. (a hole page on wikiproves.ru)
- Write in plain language
- Explain every strange move
- Add more informative illustrations
- Give lots of examples
- Do not skip logical steps
Simple and constant article styleEdit
It is much more comfortable to see what you expect ot see rather than trying to find statement which looks different from page to page.
Every article (about proposition) starts with a bow which has a color of a fild of study it refers to with a text of a statment in it.
If the proposition has multiply names, I put them in a special box wich is placed below the statement:
Colored fields of studyEdit
The idea is to use different colours for different fields of study to personalise them.
For example, blue for calculus, orange for analytical geometry a so on.
|Field of study||Background color||Border color|
- Oppose The object of this project is already covered by Wikiversity. --Zerabat (discusión) 17:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Wikiversity exists. Zetud (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Unclear what this is about. Whether this is covered by Wikiversity depends on what the precise goal is. Is it meant to be a database of mathematics? Then it is not covered by Wikiversity and would not match their format. In that case, I do think it would make a healthy project. Actually, it already is, see proofwiki:. --Bart Michels (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)