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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles
Matt Parker is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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. CassiantoTalk07:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Respectfully, after reading this statement, I am withdrawing this addition. After a double check, it seems apparent that the embedded YouTube infobox is not justified as this person is not notable for the channel, but rather for his contributions to the field. jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 07:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
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.
It is just an in-joke so I'm not sure that we should cover it at all. It has no mathematical significance and we don't want to write anything that trivialises his other work by concentrating on this matter. I could be persuaded that it merits a single sentence, if only to explain the redirect, but nothing more than that. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
This may have started as "just an in-joke", but it has long been much more than that. Saying that its inclusion "trivialises his other work" is ridiculous. Not only is it the most famous part of his work that found its way into ongoing mathematical research; "trivial" is also a category that is difficult to apply to recreational mathematics, anyway. In what way does it "trivialise" the rest of his work? It should be mentioned alongside "grafting numbers" and "letterwise magic squares" (which are both less notable than the Parker Square). Renerpho (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
The associated acts listed in the infobox are not there because of Numberphile, but because they have collaborated with Parker. All but Grimes are mentioned in the body of the article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply