This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
A deletion discussion for new article The Parker Square, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Parker Square, has included a suggestion that the article content be merged into this one. Please weigh in if you have an opinion on the deletion or on the potential merger. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This lot probably wants to move to Monopoly (game) or a spinout article from that :
This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: expand; get information from source <ref name="YTmonopoly"/> and filter out cruft. Please help improve this section if you can. |
Monopoly probability results |
00 2.854% - GO
01 2.109% - Old Kent Road/Mediterranean Avenue 02 1.919% - COMMUNITY CHEST 03 2.261% - Whitechapel Road/Baltic Avenue 04 2.404% - Income Tax 05 2.757% - Kings Cross Station/Reading RR 06 2.317% - The Angel Islington/Oriental Avenue 07 1.017% - CHANCE 08 2.308% - Euston Road/Vermont Avenue 09 2.278% - Pentonville Road/Connecticut Avenue 10 6.325% - JAIL 11 2.719% - Pall Mall/St. Charles Place 12 2.61% - Electric Company 13 2.395% - Whitehall/States Avenue 14 2.477% - Northumberland Avenue/Virginia Avenue 15 2.804% - Marylebone Station/Pennsylvania RR 16 2.8% - Bow Street/St. James Place 17 2.62% - COMMUNITY CHEST 18 2.94% - Marlborough Street/Tennessee Avenue 19 3.096% - Vine Street/New York Avenue 20 2.868% - Free Parking 21 2.839% - The Strand/Kentucky Avenue 22 1.212% - CHANCE 23 2.731% - Fleet Street/Indiana Avenue 24 3.197% - Trafalgar Square/Illinois Avenue 25 2.897% - Fenchurch St Station/B&O RR 26 2.719% - Leicester Square/Atlantic Avenue 27 2.689% - Coventry Street/Ventnor Avenue 28 2.821% - Water Works 29 2.601% - Piccadilly/Marvin Gardens 30 0% - GO TO JAIL 31 2.675% - Regent Street/Pacific Avenue 32 2.616% - Oxford Street/North Carolina Avenue 33 1.116% - COMMUNITY CHEST 34 2.494% - Bond Street/Pennsylvania Avenue 35 2.553% - Liverpool Street Station/Short Line 36 2.239% - CHANCE 37 2.085% - Park Lane/Park Place 38 2.086% - Luxury Tax 39 2.552% - Mayfair/Boardwalk |
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Ꞷumbolo 20:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear, somebody called Jd22292 is trying to edit war and is becoming disruptive by failing to honour their part of WP:BRD. Oddly, they have accused me of trying to OWN the article simply because I had the audacity to revert something I happened to disagree with, as I'm allowed to do. This attempt to close down discussion does not wash and does not make for constructive behaviour. Sadly, this has now set a precedent of how I see this discussion going: strained, hostile, and wholly problematic, when it didn't, perhaps, need to be. Claiming OWN is a cliche tactic by some to close down discussion and to keep what they see as their correct version. It is ironic that those who claim it are more than often than not those who exhibit it as they use it to OWN their version of the article whilst at the same time, reverting anyone else on sight who might disagree with them. Using it in the wrong context is uncivil and could be considered to be a PA. But don't worry, Jd22292, not to me it's not, as I'm not a snowflake, like most on here, so I'll start the discussion for you.
One of the many reasons why I don't like Infoboxes are because they are a shit magnet. They are open to abuse and allow any numpty to come along and add crap, including that person's favourite fast food restaurant; their favourite colour; whether they are right handed, left handed, or ambidextrous; do they sit down to urinate or stand up; what car they drive; and so on and so on. The bloat Mr Jd22292 is adding is just as bad. Who gives a toss how many people subscribe to his YouTube channel? Does he have Twitter? Why not add his followers? Let's do it for everyone in that case? From the first line of the lead we can tell he is a stand-up comedian, author, YouTube personality and maths communicator. Why don't we, seeing as we're in the habit of telling those lazy enough to come and rely on "gleaning quick facts" from the idiotbox, disclose how many people, on average, come to comedy gigs? How many people buy his books? What type of mathematical sum he is best at? Why devote a dozen or so fields solely on his YouTube channel? This is nothing but bloat. CassiantoTalk 07:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, somebody deleted the article for "Parker Square". I can understand that. Someone linked to this article - that's actually a great idea. But nobody wrote a summary of the Parker Square into this article. That made it moot.
There's actually the source video linked, but it's never mentioned. This is getting ridiculous.
As it's maybe Matt Parkers most well known contribution to math pop-culture, it should be mentioned when talking about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:6C4:1000:0:0:0:110 (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Here is listed several people from the Numberphile YouTube channel. However, if we list these, we may as well list everyone on the channel. Basically, my question is: why these people? MathFan23 (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)