Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Storer (American mathematician)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Thomas Storer (American mathematician)
A string figure
- ... that Navajo American mathematician Thomas Storer invented one of the standard notations for compactly and precisely describing string figures, such as the Osage Diamonds figure (pictured)?
- Reviewed:
- Comment: An alternative image would be the Osage Diamonds schema listed in the article. I think that the image of a figure built from actual string is perhaps better to illustrate the background knowledge of what a string figure is (not everyone has heard of them).
Moved to mainspace by Russ Woodroofe (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.
Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC).
- New enough. Long enough. Well-sourced, neutral, BLP-compliant, and copyvio-free per Earwig. The article is also presentable, including a basic biography of the subject. The hook is short enough. The hook is also interesting. The image is freely licensed and clear at a diminished size. QPQ is not required for editor new to DYK. IMO, I see no other subjective issues. (Here, I carefully considered Storer's identity. Investigated whether the title referring to him as "American" was appropriate and whether describing him as "Navajo American" was appropriate. Sources commonly referred to him as an "American mathematician". I found no evidence that he self-identified as simply "Navajo" as opposed to "Navajo American", therefore, the article's choice of the term "Navajo American" in the first sentence was appropriate.)
- The only remaining issues are as follows:
- The image is not used in the article. Please include the image in the article.
- The descriptor "compactly and precisely", while an accurate description of his notation method, is not sourced and appears to be the editor's (correct) original research. Russ Woodroofe, I suggest replacing, in the article and the hook, "compactly and precisely" with "unambigously and consistently" which are verifiable in the souce cited.
- Great work! Ping me when these issues are addressed and I am happy to give the go ahead. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- Coffeeandcrumbs, thank you for the thoughtful review! Your investigation on "Navajo American" parallels my thought process -- I had to think hard about what would be appropriate there. Some questions on the issues:
- On the image, it is a little tricky to include the "Osage Two Diamonds Jayne Fig 56" image in the article. It shouldn't go into the gallery, as it is related to but not identical to the string figure that is the subject of the gallery (two versus four diamonds). Outside of the gallery looks to me like it would tend to clutter the article (but maybe down by the Selected publications section??). I see two good alternatives. The first would be to instead use the first image in the gallery (converting to png to fix the current intermittent load problems). The second would be to nicely ask the International String Figure Association folks if they would make the string figure and upload a picture of it to Commons to add to the gallery (if they could do so quickly). The first is a little closer to Storer's work, while the second would make it more clear what the work was about.
- On "compact and precise", I agree with you that "compact" might be WP:OR (if it isn't WP:BLUESKY
). On the other hand, I think that "precise" is a pretty decent negation of "not ambiguous or inconsistent", as the Vandendriessche and Hoenigman sources both say. I propose that cutting "compact and precise" down to "precise" might be a good way forward.
- What do you think? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- You have convinced me on #2. Indeed, "precisely" in this context is a negation of "ambiguous or inconsistent". (Proof: De Morgan's laws. qed. Lol, I don't often get to use that law in Wikipedia editing.) I also agree that "compactly" is WP:BLUESKY, especially if we add a LATEX representation of his notation system in the article. I have added one for you. This also helps grow the article vertically allowing you to add the image in the article to address issue #1. Please add some text around the LATEX code to blend it in.
- Coffeeandcrumbs, thank you for the thoughtful review! Your investigation on "Navajo American" parallels my thought process -- I had to think hard about what would be appropriate there. Some questions on the issues:
- Russ Woodroofe: If we are in agreement, I am happy to give the green check mark once you add the image to the article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- Coffeeandcrumbs, I think I found a reasonable way to add the image, taking your idea in a little different direction. Storer's monograph gives notation for the Osage 2-Diamonds figure (as well as for many Osage Diamonds variants). I reproduced this into the article, with the image next to it. While the monograph is a primary source, this kind of illustrative purpose is not a completely inappropriate use of it. I also briefly sketch what the notation is doing, but since Storer and Vandendriessche differ somewhat on the details of how they write the notation, it seemed appropriate to keep this short indeed. It might be nice to explain that Storer as well as Vandendriessche divide the notation into functors (parts that move) and objects (where they move to). It's late here, and I'll try to look at it a little more tomorrow. Thanks for patience (and for everything)! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Good to go. Note to promoter: the hook can be shortened even further by moving "Osage Diamonds" to image description and changing (pictured) to (example pictured). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- These suggested changes look like improvements to me, and I support. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
- Coffeeandcrumbs, I think I found a reasonable way to add the image, taking your idea in a little different direction. Storer's monograph gives notation for the Osage 2-Diamonds figure (as well as for many Osage Diamonds variants). I reproduced this into the article, with the image next to it. While the monograph is a primary source, this kind of illustrative purpose is not a completely inappropriate use of it. I also briefly sketch what the notation is doing, but since Storer and Vandendriessche differ somewhat on the details of how they write the notation, it seemed appropriate to keep this short indeed. It might be nice to explain that Storer as well as Vandendriessche divide the notation into functors (parts that move) and objects (where they move to). It's late here, and I'll try to look at it a little more tomorrow. Thanks for patience (and for everything)! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
