User talk:APH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:APH\Archive 1

Contents 1 List of publications in biology 2 List of publications in law 3 Welcome back 4 The word 'Important' 5 Important publications in game theory 6 Category:Important publication in game theory 7 Recommended by David Patterson

[edit] List of publications in biology

This is up for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology - and is being confused with List of scientific journals in biology. --Bduke 01:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of publications in law

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of publications in law, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in law. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --WJBscribe 03:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) WJBscribe 03:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

There has been a lot going on with the Science Pearls articles over the last year - 3 goes at AfD with no consensus and the change of title to add "important" after one of the AfDs (since reverted for the Philosophy one). I have tried to get people to tighten the criteria but with little result, except for chemistry (my own subject). Many articles are a mess. Let me know if I can do anything to bring you up to speed. --Bduke 11:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm afraid that I'm not back to activity yet. I have being too busy outside of wikipedia and I will probably stay busy for a while.

I just added these categories since they were missing for too long and I thought that it is about time I'll add them.

I'm sorry to hear about the AfD's. Please notify me using email next time something like that happens, ok?

I saw the discussions on entries on the chemistry list. I cannot judge the entries since I lack the proper knowledge but the discussions are impressive.

Keep the good job done, I hope to return soon.

Bye,

APH 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but you do not have e-mail enabled. Please enable it. --Bduke 11:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I was sure that setting the email address is enough. The email is enabled now. Thanks, APH 09:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What's with computer science? DGG 23:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing special with computer science besides my own preferences.

Historically I started with the computer science list since I have knowledge in this area and not too much in others.

When I noticed how well the computer science list develops I thought that list on others topics is a good idea too.

I created a stubs for the lists (e.g, Einstien should be in the physics list, etc). :::Afterwards, the people that really know something about these topics came and developed the lists.

Since then when I work on the project I usually start from computer science and move to the rest. I'll try to create the categories for other topics soon. Feel, free to add such categories too. APH 10:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The word 'Important'

Hi, there will be a problem appearing before lone in the philosophy area now that publications need to be 'important' to be in the that category. In the other sciences there is a greater degree of agreement on things. Philosophy is full of contention. People will start deleting those they don't like and claiming they aren't "important" enough. There is a WP guideline somewhere, I don't remember where, that warns against using words like this in titles because they bring about edit wars and can't be resolved by attaining sources (the words are too subjective). There was a List of Major Philosophers and "major" had the same effect - finally the list was deleted. I wanted you to know why you should revert the 'important' - please remember that 'notable' already is policy. Steve 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

APH, not sure which "important" Steve is talking about. The word was added to the titles of all these list articles after it was strongly suggested in the 2nd nomination of the Biology list to AfD for deletion. I added it to all of them. Much more recently it has been removed from the philosophy list. Maybe Steve is talking about the category. --Bduke 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is the category I refer to. I really wish we could have lists and categories with words like 'major' or 'important' in Philosophy because I think they are useful. But there are a significant number of people that go on 'exclusionary' campaigns. And there are people that insist on trying to censor a POV by deleting all references to it while hiding behind the subjective nature of the title ("Sorry, but I had to delete that because it wasn't really important enough.") I do some editing in the psychology area and there is much more professional attitude there - less contention and what feels like a higher level of honesty and less of a hidden agenda at work. I imagine that the 'harder' the science, the more that is the case. Philosophy (sigh) feels different. If there were a more effective mechanism for reining in irresponible editors this might not be an issue - but that isn't something I know how to address. Best Wishes, Steve 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm willing to accept almost any title. Since it seems that the word "important" might cause some problems, I think that we should try to discuss the options in order to remove this difficulty. APH 08:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Let discuss the name here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science_pearls#A_title_for_the_list_and_categories. APH 08:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Important publication in mathematics. It covers the others too. The proposal is to rename to "Category:Important publications in mathematics", but a couple of comments say that it should be renamed to "Category:Mathematics publications" as "important" is against policy. --Bduke 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Important publications in game theory

You recently categorized the article on the excellent book Winning Ways under this heading. Shouldn't it be combinatorial game theory instead? (See game theory). Leon math 01:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Leon math,

Unfortunately, I don't have a significant knowledge in game theory. I'm also not familiar with the book. I added the book to the category in a "technical" manner - just because it was classified under the game theory section in the list of important publications in mathematics. If you think that the categorization should be different, please change it. Since combinatorial game theory is a sub field of game theory, we can create such a new sub category and add the book to it.

What do you think of the other entries in the list?

APH 10:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Important publication in game theory

It should be "Category:Important publications in game theory", notice the plural in "publications". Same for all other categories you created. It should be quite a lot of work on your part to go back and fix all that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I used "publication" since each of the members of the category is a single publication. However, there was a discussion in which it was decided to rename to "publications". Should the rename be done manually everywhere? Isn't there any mechanism like the "rediredct"? APH 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no mechanism, sorry. To say "Important publication in calculus" is grammatically incorrect, even if there is only one. I'd strongly suggest you visit those pages and fix things. Once you are done, I can delete the current incorrect categories. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And note that "Important publication in Information theory" should be "Important publications in information theory" (small "i" in "information", in addition to the plural in "publications". Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I accept your remarks. Thank you.

I don't have to much time currently but I'll add the category rename to my tasks list.

APH 07:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to bug you again, but those categories would need indeed fixing. The (complete, I hope) list is available at User:Mathbot/New math categories. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Oleg, I agree that we should rename the catgories. Can we use the bot for that? APH 07:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, somebody needs to write a script for that. In my experience, for a small dataset it takes much less time to actually do things by hand than write a program and debug it. For example, to rename Category:Important publication in elementry algebra all you need to do is visit that category, visit the only article in there, and add an "s" at the end of "publication" in the category name. If that category had a few hundred articles, we could do it with a bot, but since it has only one article, it is faster to do it by hand. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, hold on with renaming. We need to first see if having these categories is a good idea to start with (I am not so sure). Tonight (U.S. time) I will nominate them for deletion/renaming, and see what people say. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 28. Let's see what people say. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommended by David Patterson

Hi APH! I'm just curious, how is David Patterson doing these recommendations? Is this private communication to you, or is are they public records somewhere? Thanks :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, they were in private communication but now they are on the list ;-) . I thought that many of the people that can make a very valuable contribution to the science pearls project are not aware of it. I started contacting people whose publications appear on the list already and Turing awards winners and asked them for comments on the list.

It worked like magic. I got many valuable recommendations from many of them. Some of them agreed that I'll use their name. You can see it in the history page, near the relevant entry. Other than that, the project and the content of the list received many compliments.

Besides, discussing the project with some of them was real fun…

APH 08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty awesome, APH. I'm glad to hear the project was received so warmly. -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it was by far beyond my expectations. I might try to extend this method to other lists too. Unfortunately, in most of the other areas I don't have a proper background. APH 08:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)