Delirium wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, I think I've made it abundantly clear I disagree. Those mathematical articles should all be referenced. The person who is in the best position to do that is the original author.
For most of them, the original author is no better placed to reference them than anyone else, because they're results that appear in standard textbooks. I could singlehandedly "reference" most of the linear algebra articles, for example, just by copy/pasting the reference list from [[linear algebra]] to the end of every one. But in cases where something is a standard result in elementary textbooks, I don't see what advantage actually listing some arbitrarily chosen textbook gives the reader.
It helps a reader who comes through some path other than the main article. What I usually do is to use the general reference and add specific relevant page numbers. If one has multiple possible sources, then pick just one or two that have the best individual concept descriptions. Readers will very much appreciate getting the direct connection, and it also helps future editors when the general references happen to differ in their detailed treatment of a specific concept - there have been any number of minor edit fights that get started because different references say different things.
I think it would be an acceptable bandaid to have a "References" section saying "See [[linear algebra#References]]".
Stan