Help desk
< December 13	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

December 14

Another question

How long should a ^{[citation needed]} template remain in place until something happens to the text that needs to be cited (i.e. the text is deleted, there's a discussion, etc.)? Just for context, I'm trying to find this out because part of part of paragraph two in West Point, New York#Geography and climate is unsourced, and I'm having trouble finding a citation for it. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find suitable sources, you can just remove the content in question. Technically there are no time limit on those things, but if they've been there for a while and no improvement can be made, then removal is quite reasonable. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutwakhamoe: I mean, this citation has been there since July. I don't know if that's long enough at this point. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 02:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the sentence started with "Extremes in temperature...", I don't see any cited sources for it. You can remove the content, as you've done your search and did not find suitable sources. If anyone wants to add those back, they'll be expected to provide sources, that's all. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Relativity: If you wish, you can remove it five minutes after it is added, even without a {{citation needed}}, as part of the WP:BRD process. Removal is a signal to the other editor that the entry must be discussed before it is re-added. However, be reasonable. Let the other editor have a bit of time first, maybe a day. We are supposed to be collaborating, not fighting. -Arch dude (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relativity, the information you removed here just needed to be updated. The specific weather numbers are available in the sources linked at the bottom of the colourful climate table (NOAA and National Weather Service).

The reason the numbers present in the article didn't already match the sources is because they came from an older dataset: 1981–2010 instead of 1991–2020. When {{Weather box}} at that article was updated in 2021, the updating editor neglected to update the prose paragraph preceding the table. The matching numbers can still be seen at NOAA. The record high and low temperatures (sourced to this) don't need to be updated, but take a little bit of work to verify.

The source website must be interfaced with in the following way: in the default tab (NOWData), in the left pane (1. Location) select "West Point, NY"; in the second pane (2. Product) select "Calendar day summaries"; in the third pane (3. Options), the default range will be "all time", which for me displays as "por - 2023" inside two lozenges; you can select under "Variable" either "Max Temp" or "Min Temp", and leave the "Summary" as the default; in the fourth pane, tap "Go" and you will be shown a sortable table with record daily high (or low) temperatures in Fahrenheit, with the record monthly high / low displayed in red / blue. Oh right I forgot to mention: you'll have to extract the record all time temperatures by comparing the coloured numbers. This falls under WP:CALC and is not considered Original Research. 04:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Since all of the processing takes place server-side without altering the URL, it can make it seem like the source doesn't support the prose, and it took me a few minutes to figure out how to do it, but the information is there.

Being that you've taken an interest in this article, I'd suggest you restore the removed information and update the relevant numbers using the more recent dataset, perhaps specifying the year range, and adding inline citations that point to the same sources cited at the bottom of the {{weather box}} template, which you can do easily (see Wikipedia:Named references, a redirect I correctly guessed). If you wish not to restore any of the climate information, that's probably fine too, but I thought you might want to know how to source the information since you asked about it here. Folly Mox (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Folly Mox: Thank you for telling me! ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 00:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steps between letting a paid editor know there's an issue and COIN?

I've recently been dealing with a paid editor- however, I feel like I've exhausted my (very limited) ability to explain the issues to them. Other editors have also left notes when they reverted the paid editor's contributions, but they haven't stuck around. I don't feel like escalating to the WP:COIN is a good idea yet, but I'm very inexperienced in this area. Also, with a paid editor, I'm not entirely sure how to have a genuine conversation, which isn't helping either of us. What are some good steps to take before taking this to the noticeboard? Is there a guideline of how many time somebody can try to add promotional material to an article before an editor should escalate? Thank you for any advice you can give me.GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian: when you are inexperienced and feel like you are out of your depth, it's time to step back and turn the problem over to more experienced Wikipedians. Take it to WP:COIN now. Coming to the help desk was a good idea, but in this case I do not think there is an appropriate intermediate step. -Arch dude (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude:Thank you for your advice. I don't want to trouble the noticeboards unnecessarily, but you're right. I really do need to let somebody more experienced take over, before I can do any damage. I'm going to take the issue there now. Thank you again. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Limbavali how to edit this content

Hello team, We need to edit content of Arvind Limbavali now it showing Semi protected K rakshath (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K rakshath, why do you say "we"? -- Hoary (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive "Controversy" section may not be WP:BLP-good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@K rakshath For articles that are locked to you, it is always possible to make suggested edits on the corresponding Talk Page, in this case Talk:Arvind Limbavali. There is an explanation of the process at WP:ER. Note that this biography falls into the class of Wikipedia:Contentious topics so you should also read that linked page before making any suggestion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When somebody says "we need to edit [article]", they often need to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@K rakshath At your request, the semi-protection on that article was removed. You proceeded to delete all the controversy section but that has now been restored by User:Celjski Grad. At this point in our bold, revert, discuss cycle, you must discuss your proposed version on the Talk Page of the article. You have repeatedly used the word "we" in making edit summaries. Are you in any way connected with Limbavali or acting on his behalf? Is so, your conflict of interest should be declared and any edit suggestions made using the {{edit COI}} template, via the Talk Page. See also your own Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've also brought the article up on the BLP noticeboard for additional guidance Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Arvind Limbavali Celjski Grad (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP indeffed for VAND. Folly Mox (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Suleyman Demirel University] => [SDU University]

Добрый день! У нас в университете сложилась проблема с наименованием, пришлось сделать ребрендинг и поменять название университета. Проблема в том что в википедий мы никак не смогли поменять тему/заголовок https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleyman_Demirel_University [Suleyman Demirel University] => [SDU University] ISpeciaLxx (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translation:

Good afternoon Our university had a problem with the name, we had to rebrand and change the name of the university. The problem is that on Wikipedia we couldn’t change the topic/title. Tollens (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a suitable source for the rebranding, preferably not from the university itself. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ISpeciaLxx: There is also a discussion at Talk:Suleyman Demirel University, so it would be best to continue the discussion there. If you work for the university, you must declare your conflict of interest. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image for Macon B. Allen on Wikipedia

Dear Staff,

The image for Macon B. Allen is inaccurate. There are no known pictures of Macon Allen. In fact, the existing image is of Robert Elliott, Sr. How would one address this error and have the existing image deleted?

Thanks you.

Wink Twyman 2600:1700:A380:C1D0:95A5:4C14:FB77:487C (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "staff" in Wikipedia, we are all volunteers. When reporting a problem with a page please include a link such as [[Robert_B._Elliott]], it helps us to know which of the 6 or 7 million articles you are referring to. I'm assuming that you are talking about Macon Bolling Allen and Robert B. Elliott, there are quite a few Robert Elliotts. At first glance the image of Allen doesn't look like the images of Elliott, do you have any references for your assertion? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur: the hairlines are implausibly different. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! It's also best practice to first ask at the article's talk page. For example, if your concern is about the image at Macon Bolling Allen, then the first place to ask would be Talk:Macon Bolling Allen (along with any published reliable sources). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wink, unfortunately, people occasionally misidentify historical images on blogs or other sites. Then these get added to Wikipedia by well-meaning editors, which means that they very soon spread across the internet with the incorrect identification. It is very difficult to counter this once it has happened.

To my mind, this looks like Robert Morris (lawyer), but this Philadelphia Tribune article shows the the two side by side, so what do I know? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change country where a page is deposeted

Anyone that can help me with changing he country where my page page is deposited (now is DE.wikipedia... and it should be EN.wikipedia...)?

Thank you in advance Simomalna (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Simomalna: Hi there! Are you referring to de:Banca del Sempione? You could follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation to create a draft here. GoingBatty (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Simomalna, If you mean that you want Banca del Sempione to be an article on en-WP, see guidance at WP:TRANSLATE and WP:NCORP. As currently written, that article will not be accepted on en.WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Simomalna, why shouldn't there be a (German-language) article about this (or any) subject on the German-language Wikipedia?

Why indeed should any-language Wikipedia not have an article about this subject (in its appropriate language)? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.,230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a subject meets the requirements for notability in one language Wikipedia, but not another, then there may be an article about it in the first but there cannot be one in the second.

Otherwise the answer is the same as every other "why isn't there an article about X?" viz, "Because nobody has written it". ColinFine (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

En-WP shouldn't if the subject fails WP:NCORP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a minor point but it is important conceptually. The various versions of Wikipedia are not organized by country but instead by language. Any German speaker anywhere is welcome to contribute to the German Wikipedia. There are 20 times more speakers of Portugese in Brazil than in Portugal. There are 500 million native speakers of Spanish in Latin America and only 50 million in Spain. Wikipedia language versions know no national boundaries. Cullen328 (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but when it comes to less international languages, they tend to largely become country-WP:s (I saw a journalist making that point recently). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't surprise me, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. But if it's true, as it probably is, then it's not something I'd want to encourage. Let Swedish-literate Finns and others contribute to Swedish-language Wikipedia, Abkhazian-literate Turks and others contribute to Abkhazian-language Wikipedia, and so on. -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I'm not saying it's a good thing. But for many languages, there won't be many other-country people getting involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the history section of the vital articles page: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History

Hi, I am an active editor of the vital articles project here on Wikipedia. The main reason I am reaching out is because I am editing this page which are the level 5 articles for the history section. When you look at the last three sections of 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, I would like to change them so that Late modern covers events before 1945 and Contemporary covers events after 1945. I have tried making the changes before manually, but my edits got reverted because the list didn't come out right. I asked for help on the vital articles talk page, but I didn't get a lot of comments there. It is frustrating because I would've thought that other editors would build off my edits to make it better and instead reverted my edits. I am hoping that I can find a good tool that I can use to complete this task there. Interstellarity (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellarity, I've put some time into trying to understand what is going on at the linked page, I read the talkpage conversation between you and Piotrus, and I looked at the edits you made 24 November. With no edit summaries, and context lacking in diff mode, it's really difficult to see what you're trying to do.

Are pages like this the sole data repositories of the Vital Articles project? There's no underlying database or anything? Without a more structured form of data, any reperiodisation is going to have to be done manually, and I'm rather astonished that Cewbot is able to make anything of that page (which I had to view in desktop mode: in mobile view the 3300+ entries are flatly unnavigable).

Since you seem to have consensus at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Subpage 2#History to perform the reperiodisation, unless there's an underlying data structure you can update, I think the methodology I would tentatively suggest would be first to create "Early modern" and "Contemporary" subheadings on the enormous V5/Hisory page, and progressively fill them up with entries and subcategories by removing them from the existing 19th, 20th, and 21th century categories. This will result in a transitional phase during which two competing incomplete periodisations will coexist on the page, which I can only imagine people will hate, but it should be easier not to drop articles. I'd also strongly recommend leaving an edit summary with each edit in this process, along the lines of "19th century Africa topics → Early modern Africa topics". That way people will be able to follow what you're doing.

An alternative idea would be to copypaste the wikitext of the existing periods into a separate app, reorganise it there, and then dump it overtop the existing schema all in one diff. If you export the relevant sections of the page into a spreadsheet program, you should be able to add columns for "updated period" and "subcategory" (most of which will be geographical areas), then order the contents of the spreadsheet by those two new columns, and export the reordered links back to wikitext. This will help make sure you don't drop any items, and will reduce the amount of time two competing schema are present at the project page to zero, but will be extra work.

Any way you approach this seems like it will take a long time. I'm hoping someone might have better suggestions. Folly Mox (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Communist States Page

I think this page should be entirely deleted, and instead have "Communist States" redirect to "Communist Nations", since there can be no such thing as a communist state, considering a communist society is notably "stateless". Also, most of these nations are socialist SpookyScarySocialist (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)SpookyScarySocialist (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, States commonly described as "Communist" by themselves and/or others are (or their ruling politicians supposedly are) aspiring towards communism, and are likely either in the Socialist stage of this hoped-for evolution, or would like others to think they are. I don't know offhand of any State that has achieved full communism yet, and in political discourse this is widely understood.

In what way do you think that the article Communist state fails to make this clear? If you can specify your concerns and find Reliable sources that corroborate your unverified thoughts, you should discuss them on the Talk page of the article and seek to build a consensus in favour of introducing your proposed change(s). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SpookyScarySocialist: Please always link any page you refer to or want help with. I don't know whether you mean Communist state, List of communist states, Category:Communist states, or something else. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will do as such in the future, but this applies to all of those articles truly SpookyScarySocialist (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it fails purely in it's name. The name "communist state" itself is an oxymoron and completely contradictory, even if it is explained SpookyScarySocialist (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you are in the minority. Many terms in English are idiomatic, not literal, and it is not Wikipedia's mission to WP:Right great wrongs by ignoring our own WP:Commonname policy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, Wikipedia uses common names: relevant technical distinctions in terminology may be explained in the appropriate articles. Remsense留 03:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up: problematic user

Hey

I'm not an admin so I can't do much about this. Please look at User:188.251.247.192 and the talk page of @Soetermans. I think we need to be wary of our block powers here. ,doktorb _words^deeds 23:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doktorbuk, thanks for taking action. The IP user had been abusing TheDeviantPro's talk page, which has been edit protected. They sign their messages with "MySuperBelt85", which is a sockpuppeteer. Considering they have stated to continue their abuse, perhaps it's a case for WP:LONG? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 23:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematic formula too long

I have several formulas in my sandbox (MathewsSH/sandbox) for this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datar-Mathews_method_for_real_option_valuation) that are very long. I cannot figure out how to display them in a shorter context. Here is one of the formulas: $C_{0}=E\left(if\langle \left({\tilde {S}}_{1}e^{-Rt_{0}}\geq {\tilde {X}}_{1}e^{-rt_{0}}\right),if\lbrace \left({\tilde {S}}_{2}e^{-Rt_{0}}\geq {\tilde {X}}_{2}e^{-rt_{0}}+{\tilde {X}}_{1}e^{-rt_{0}}\right),\left[max\left({\tilde {S}}_{3}e^{-Rt_{0}}-{\tilde {X}}_{3}e^{-rt_{0}},0\right)-{\tilde {X}}_{2}e^{-rt_{0}}-{\tilde {X}}_{1}e^{-rt_{0}}\right],-{\tilde {X}}_{1}e^{-rt_{0}}\rbrace ,0\rangle \right).$ I have tried several editing techniques including various multi-line formatting (\begin{align} etc.) and line breaks ({br}, etc.). None seem to work as the formula cannot be cut with inducing an error code. Do you have any suggestions? MathewsSH (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Scott Mathews[reply]

What do you mean by shorter context? Can you use separate math inlines and display them on separate lines? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "in a shorter context" means "on a narrow screeen". Maproom (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MathewsSH: It appears that \left ( must have a matching \right ) on the same line. How about this:

${\begin{alignedat}{2}C_{0}=E{\Bigl (}&if\langle \left({\tilde {S}}_{1}e^{-Rt_{0}}\geq {\tilde {X}}_{1}e^{-rt_{0}}\right),if\lbrace \left({\tilde {S}}_{2}e^{-Rt_{0}}\geq {\tilde {X}}_{2}e^{-rt_{0}}+{\tilde {X}}_{1}e^{-rt_{0}}\right),\\&\left[max\left({\tilde {S}}_{3}e^{-Rt_{0}}-{\tilde {X}}_{3}e^{-rt_{0}},0\right)-{\tilde {X}}_{2}e^{-rt_{0}}-{\tilde {X}}_{1}e^{-rt_{0}}\right],-{\tilde {X}}_{1}e^{-rt_{0}}\rbrace ,0\rangle {\Bigr )}.\end{alignedat}}$

I used extra big \Bigl( and \Bigr) to give a visual hint that they are matching parentheses on different lines, and I used alignment after "E(" to indicate that E's parameter continues on the next line. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter It worked perfectly. I've copied the solution into my sandbox article.

Also, I guessed there was a mathematician behind your answer - first to understand that it was a complete formula and then to very helpfully suggest the \Bigl( and \Bigr).

(By the way, your website is quite impressive! Igen, tak.) MathewsSH (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Scott Mathews[reply]

@PrimeHunter A continuation ... I applied your suggested technique to three other formulas - all with success. Then in a reference section, I have several more long formulas which overrun the reference section's constrained visual space, as follows:

^[1]

I want to shorten formulas #3 and #4 using your technique by embedding \begin{alignat}{2} ... \end{alignat} within the larger external formatting of \begin{align} ... \end{align}. But this technique fails. What is your suggestion? MathewsSH (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Scott Mathews MathewsSH (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MathewsSH:I have a math degree from a zillion years ago and forty years' experience with equations in programming languages. I find this equation to be nearly unreadable, regardless of the technical details, so I think the average Wikipedia reader will probably have the same problem. Programmers often solve this problem by using intermediary equations. In particular, your outer block is a function E, with one parameter. its parameter is (as written) the constant i times a function f, which has three parameters f(something1,something2,0) , where something1 is another constant i times a function f of three parameters. To simplify this, I would start with an equation for that inner something2. I would then write an equation for something1. Finally write the final equation. if the intermediate equations are meaningful, you can also add comments for them to assist the reader. -Arch dude (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dudeThank you for your reply. Yes, this formula (and several others) are complicated. The formulas are embedded in a much longer, mathematical article that fully explains their derivation with intermediate steps along with images illustrating the salient points. These longer formulas represent 5 U.S. patents, which have extensive documentation, again all referenced in the article.

This article is not for "average Wikipedia reader(s)", but for those professionals involved in the computational finance fields.

Again, thanks for helping out. Given your math and programming background, I may have to call on you again for assistance in the future. Best, MathewsSH (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Scott Mathews[reply]

Hello, MathewsSH. If This article is not for "average Wikipedia reader(s)", but for those professionals involved in the computational finance fields, then you should consider whether it should be in Wikipedia at all, or some other outlet.

That statements seems to contravene both the editing guidelines, and Wikipedia's policy: See WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, which says A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field ColinFine (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ A multi-stage option can be valued with fractional parts. Below is an example for a three-stage option:
$:::{\begin{aligned}:::&1.\quad \mathbb {P} \left({\tilde {S}}_{1}e^{-Rt_{0}}<P_{1}^{**}\right)\times 0\\:::&2.\quad \mathbb {P} \left({\tilde {S}}_{1}e^{-Rt_{0}}\geq P_{1}^{**}\;\And \;{\tilde {S}}_{2}e^{-Rt_{0}}<P_{2}^{**}\right)\times -{\tilde {X}}_{2}e^{-rt_{0}}\\:::&3.\quad \mathbb {P} \left({\tilde {S}}_{1}e^{-Rt_{0}}\geq P_{1}^{**}\;\And \;{\tilde {S}}_{2}e^{-Rt_{0}}\geq P_{2}^{**}\;\And \;{\tilde {S}}_{3}e^{-Rt_{0}}<{\tilde {X}}_{3}e^{-rt_{0}}\right)\times {\tilde {X}}_{3}e^{-rt_{0}}\\:::&4.\quad \mathbb {P} \left({\tilde {S}}_{1}e^{-Rt_{0}}\geq P_{1}^{**}\;\And \;{\tilde {S}}_{2}e^{-Rt_{0}}\geq P_{2}^{**}\;\And \;{\tilde {S}}_{3}e^{-Rt_{0}}\geq {\tilde {X}}_{3}e^{-rt_{0}}\right)\times \left[{\tilde {S}}_{3}e^{-Rt_{0}}-\left({\tilde {X}}_{3}e^{-rt_{0}}+{\tilde {X}}_{2}e^{-rt_{0}}+{\tilde {X}}_{1}e^{-rt_{0}}\right)\right]\\:::&5.\quad \sum \left(1:4\right)\\:::\end{aligned}}:::$

@MathewsSH: My interpretation is nested if expressions of form if(exp, a, b) which evaluates to a if exp is true and b otherwise. I agree it's hard to read but I don't know the practice in the field. I don't think long formulas are suited for a reference. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter Yes, the prior formula(s) employed 'if' expressions. However, the formula can also be evaluated using a series of probability functions

\mathbb {P}

(for example, 44%, 20%, ...) multiplied by fractional parts of the multiplicand. In some cases such a fractional structuring of the operation can be better understood to represent the whole (lengthy) formula. In a sense, the fractional representation is a deconstruction of the whole formula. Again, thanks for your input. MathewsSH (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Scott Mathews[reply]

@MathewsSH: I agree: this is not suitable for Wikipedia since is not for the general reader. You might consider adding it as a book at Wikibooks. As a separate issue, I do not feel you should mix FORTRAN-like "if" with mathematical symbology. You also have an issue with the use of square brackets "[" and "]", which are often used for vectors. Arch dude (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude Thank you again for your comments. As for "not suitable for Wikipedia ... not general reader: Are you familiar with Wikipedia articles such as Black-Scholes model, Black-Scholes equation, and Log-normal distribution? This is the field in which I work and these articles laden with mathematics are for professionals, which we reference often enough.

Square brackets have a variety of uses such as algebra, functions, intervals, and, yes, matrices/vectors.

The "if" function also has a variety of uses, but in the case of this article, it is used in a blend of mathematics and commercial applications such as in MS Excel/VBA, R, Python, etc.

Again, thank you for your input. MathewsSH (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Scott Mathews[reply]

@PrimeHunter I found a solution for the reference section formulas: \begin{alignat}{7} ... \end{alignat}. This obviously follows your initial suggestion. Again, thank you.

As far as your comment about the unsuitability of long formulas included in a reference section ...I see your point. I examined other similar mathematical articles and these have few or no mathematics in their reference sections. I had in mind to maintain the article's main section as brief as possible with side comments (including mathematical functions) relegated to the reference section.

So it becomes a discussion about how to properly format a longer article without overburdening the reader with interesting, but relevant side comments. Are these relevant side comments included in the 'Reference' section an abuse of the term 'reference' as discussed in the Wikipedia Manual of Style/Mathematics? MathewsSH (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Scott Mathews[reply]

@MathewsSH: See Help:Explanatory notes. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] A multi-stage option can be valued with fractional parts. Below is an example for a three-stage option:
$:::{\begin{aligned}:::&1.\quad \mathbb {P} \left({\tilde {S}}_{1}e^{-Rt_{0}}<P_{1}^{**}\right)\times 0\\:::&2.\quad \mathbb {P} \left({\tilde {S}}_{1}e^{-Rt_{0}}\geq P_{1}^{**}\;\And \;{\tilde {S}}_{2}e^{-Rt_{0}}<P_{2}^{**}\right)\times -{\tilde {X}}_{2}e^{-rt_{0}}\\:::&3.\quad \mathbb {P} \left({\tilde {S}}_{1}e^{-Rt_{0}}\geq P_{1}^{**}\;\And \;{\tilde {S}}_{2}e^{-Rt_{0}}\geq P_{2}^{**}\;\And \;{\tilde {S}}_{3}e^{-Rt_{0}}<{\tilde {X}}_{3}e^{-rt_{0}}\right)\times {\tilde {X}}_{3}e^{-rt_{0}}\\:::&4.\quad \mathbb {P} \left({\tilde {S}}_{1}e^{-Rt_{0}}\geq P_{1}^{**}\;\And \;{\tilde {S}}_{2}e^{-Rt_{0}}\geq P_{2}^{**}\;\And \;{\tilde {S}}_{3}e^{-Rt_{0}}\geq {\tilde {X}}_{3}e^{-rt_{0}}\right)\times \left[{\tilde {S}}_{3}e^{-Rt_{0}}-\left({\tilde {X}}_{3}e^{-rt_{0}}+{\tilde {X}}_{2}e^{-rt_{0}}+{\tilde {X}}_{1}e^{-rt_{0}}\right)\right]\\:::&5.\quad \sum \left(1:4\right)\\:::\end{aligned}}:::$

[1]