User talk:D.Lazard

I noticed this edit of yours at List of topics related to π. This was my first thought, too, but then I spotted an invisible comment at the top of the list pointing to Wikipedia:Lists within articles § Advantages of lists #8:

Lists can include invisible links to discussion pages, so that clicking on "related changes" will include those (format: [[Talk:Omphalology|]]).

Might be a good idea to restore. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I was not aware of the invisible comment at the top of the article and of the "related change" feature. It appears that this feature and the empty link trick may apply to every link in every article. IMO, this may be useful only when the discussions on the talk pages of the linked articles may impact the article where the link is placed.

This feature may be useful in mathematics for links between strongly related topics, such as curve, differentiable curve, algebraic curve, parametric curve, implicit curve, plane curve, etc. In such a case, a discussion on the content of one of this articles may impact the other articles.

In the case of this particular list, the items seems too weakly related for making the feature useful.

So, I'll revert my change only if a reason is provided that is better than the dubious advantage (with respect to what?) #8. D.Lazard (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd say the same principle as in WP:R#K5 applies here. As long as you can't point to harm being done... 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Linking dos and don'ts says Don't link to user, project, draft, or talk pages in articles. These links are invisible, but are links from main space to talk space.

So, the question is controversial, and I will neither self-revert myself nor fighting if I would be reverted by someone else. D.Lazard (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks like we're riding the same train there. 🖖 Paradoctor (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Is there any specific justification as to why you seem to be arbitrarily gatekeeping some primary sources, while not removing other primary sources? Wouldn't it be better if you removed all of the sentences that exclusively rely upon primary sources instead? Or is there any specific and measurable criteria that you are using, when assessing whether some primary sources are acceptable or not acceptable? I honestly don't understand the rationale or motivation behind your recent edits, and would really appreciate some clarification on your behalf, if you don't mind.

In case you're wondering why I'm writing here, like with all niche topic articles this talkpage gets 33 views per month, and any thread there is guaranteed to die without any actionable outcome. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

To editor Benlisquare: Talk:Signed distance function has 59 WP:watchers. This page has 87 watchers, but I suppose that very few (less than 5, probably) are interested in signed distance function. So, if to want contributions by other editors, you must definitely discuss on the talk page of the article.

I agree that the other paragraphs of the section are badly sourced, but some work is needed for deciding whether better sources exist and whether the content is notable enough for being mentioned in Wikipedia. As I am not willing for doing the job for the moment, I do not remove the tags you have placed.

About your addition to the page: Firstly, the existence of content that should not be there is never a good reason to add new content that does not satisfy Wikipedia requirements. Secondly, the content you added is blatantly very far to satisfy Wikipedia requirement of WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. Indeed, it refers only to a recent Chinese patent (2024) issued by a Chinese game developer that has not a page in English Wikipedia. Moreover, there is no indication that the patent could have been used in any notable game. So, it is not only because of the lack of secondary sources that I reverted your edit, but also because of the policies WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. D.Lazard (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

When viewing the addition of the sentence about the 2024 Chinese patent in strict isolation, I'm inclined to agree with you. From a comparative perspective, however, it feels strange to have an esoteric FOSS text editor and a relatively unknown FOSS game engine take inclusion precedence over a patent held by a Chinese game studio that is granted by the Chinese Patent Administration (a government agency which holds jurisdiction over 1.4 billion people, by no means insignificant) because the former two can be "grandfathered in" from an old article revision and also have English Wikipedia articles, while the latter exists at zh:散爆网络 but no one has bothered to make an enwiki entry yet (with the language barrier likely taking a role).

To illustrate, while it is certainly an amazing technical feat that Zed is able to make use of SDFs to draw UI elements more efficiently, its actual real-world significance is questionable given the limited real-world reach of Zed and its userbase; meanwhile, the Chinese patent does have some significance in that because the technique to draw particle effects on a videogame grid using SDFs has been formally patented, and that the patent has actually been approved by a government agency handling patents, this also means that no other development studio is able to implement the same technique without paying royalties to a patent holder, at least within China anyway. Patents aren't just merely written up by a person or an organisation, a governing body actually has to review the submission, and if conditions are satisfactory, approve them. I feel like the significance or notability of this could be indirectly inherited from the unusual quirk that a patent for this game dev technique even exists in the first place, though I could be wrong.

I have my doubts as to whether the Zed example and the Godot example demonstrate real-world significance, even if secondary sources can be found; on the other hand, Valve's implementation of SDF to display high DPI fonts certainly would have demonstrable significance if secondary sources can be found, because Valve is a large and notable company, having produced many software products that are also notable given their userbase size and media coverage. If the Zed and Godot examples were included due to secondary coverage, I'd be willing to overlook this, but their existence in the article literally hinges on two developer blog posts. While certainly not matching Valve in size, Sunborn isn't exactly a small studio either, having a similar number of employees to Valve, and a sizeable quantity of third-party media coverage (albeit 90% of it only written in the Chinese language).

As for the talk page, I think you're probably right. I first chose to use your user talkpage instead as I intended this to be more of an informal discussion with you, rather than an actual "D" part of WP:BRD, but I wouldn't mind if other editors chimed in too. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the whole section is badly sourced and that some part should probably be removed. By WP:BRD, you can boldly remove what should be removed if you explain the reasons of the removal on the talk page. But, please, each application must be discussed separately, and this must not be done here; the article talk page exists for this purpose.

Also, if you open a discussion on these applications, it would be a good idea to notify it at WT:COMP and WT:COMPG. D.Lazard (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

User talk:D.Lazard

Safe Primes, in RSA

Coordinate Systems and Analytic Geometry

Invisible talk page links

Primary sources

Wikiwand - on