Jump to content

User talk:Ruud Koot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pjoef (talk | contribs) at 14:40, 15 February 2011 ({{Talkback|Pjoef|Mathematics in medieval Islam|ts=~~~~~}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello, Ruud Koot. You have new messages at Pjoef's talk page.
Message added 14:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Archive
Archives

Categories

Hi, wrt this edit — avoid putting mathematicians directly in Category:Indian mathematics. There's a subcategory Category:Ancient Indian mathematicians for that (the name is a bit of a misnomer, but the category page says it's for pre-13th century, which includes everyone up to Bhaskara II or so when Indian mathematics effectively ended outside Kerala, and for Kerala we have the subcat Category:Kerala school). BTW, you've been moving a lot of articles to names with diacritics. This is not necessary or helpful; it's better to use common names. There has been a lot of prior discussion on many India-related articles about this. It's enough to have the diacritically correct name in the article at the top somewhere; most readers cannot read (or cannot correctly read) the names with diacritics, so in many cases such changes make the encyclopedia less helpful. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately someone re-categorized most of these articles in Category:Indian mathematicians, making it unclear which are contemporary mathematicians, and which are of historical interest. I hadn't noticed Category:Ancient Indian mathematicians yet, as it is indeed quite a misnomer, so I put some in Category:Indian mathematics (categories are also often used for a related-to relation, in this case biographies being related to the history of Indian mathematics.) Regarding transliteration, for most subjects I agree we should use an informal romanization, however in academic literature on the history of Indian mathematics (of which there is far more than "popular" literature) you'll find the names are consistently transliterated with diacritics, making it the common name. The diacritics shouldn't really cause a problem any more unless you're using a web browser which is by now a decade old. Cheers, —Ruud 05:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Category:Medieval Indian mathematicians to avoid the misnomer. By "most readers cannot read", I did not mean that there is a technological problem, but that the diacritics are simply incomprehensible to most readers, and thus unhelpful. I agree that for really obscure articles where there is so little popular literature (or academic literature without diacritics) that the academic literature with diacritics is more common, it's better to use the name with diacritics (if you can prove that it's more common). I also feel there isn't much of a problem for names where removing diacritics from the IAST transliteration would result in an acceptable normal spelling. But especially when IAST makes counterintuitive choices (such as using c for 'ch', and ṣ for 'sh'), the result is something unhelpful or misleading for nearly all readers. Those who are capable of reading IAST and need the correct pronunciation are sufficiently well-served by putting that transliteration in the first line, without encumbering all readers throughout the article. (Again, there are exceptions such as for articles dealing with Sanskrit literature, where getting the right transliteration is more crucial and is also more likely to be more familiar to a greater proportion of readers.) We're just rehashing the usual discussion at this point, it appears. :p Shreevatsa (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Medieval Indian mathematicians seems reasonable, although I've never seen the adjective medieval applied to Indian. With the possible exceptions of Āryabhaṭa and Bhāskara II (but probably even for those) I'm fairly certain I can give you n+1 IAST transliterations (or a whole lot more) of a name if you give me n romanizations (restricted to reliable sources). These articles mostly do belong to the class of exceptions where the right transliteration is more crucial to many readers. —Ruud 06:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. As I said, it's enough to put the IAST transliteration (and much more usefully, the spelling in some Indian script) to make it clear what the correct pronunciation is. The transliteration is more likely to mislead than clarify: if instead of "Achyuta Pisharati" you name an article "Acyuta Piṣāraṭi", it is more likely to be read as "Acyuta Pisarati", which is terrible. Anyway, this has been much discussed, and the consensus is against such torturing of readers. So please stop. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is in this case not the pronunciation which is important, but the fact that one might be studying original language manuscripts. WP:COMMONNAME actually gives us two test to determine the common name:
  1. Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.
  2. Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most common.
If we consider these two points
  1. Unfortunately most of these articles are currently quite poorly sourced. I hope to improve this over time. As this is done it should become obvious that indeed a majority of reliable sources favour a transliteration.
  2. Regarding other encyclopedia's, we have for example the Dictionary of Scientific Biography which uses an IAST transliteration.
I really think you're underestimating the "obscurity" of most of these articles, fairly little has been written on these historical scientists and manuscripts outside of what appears in academic journals. —Ruud 06:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is important is to help the readers, whom the encyclopedia is being written for. The readers are reading a general-purpose encyclopedia, not studying original language manuscripts. You are welcome to improve the sourcing and prove that a certain spelling is more common; that would be a better use of your time currently than contriving to mislead readers. As it happens, many of these articles currently source something like the MacTutor History of Mathematics, which happens to use spellings without diacritics — so they are using the spelling used in the source. (Even Encyclopedia Britannica tends to use non-diacritic spellings often.) Shreevatsa (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How are we helping readers by giving them an ad hoc romanization that differs from the transliteration they will encounter in any material they may wish to consult for further reading? (This is the strongest argument for not using a transliteration in most articles, it differs from what readers will encounter in the larger world, for these articles the opposite is true.) Regarding the other sources your mention: the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive unfortunately has many errors in the names they list and the lack of a proper transliteration is more of a historical technical limitation than a deliberate choice. The Encyclopedia Britannica has certainly recently been using transliterations for historical Arabic scientists in it's electronic version (the paper edition may have done this even longer), but I haven't checked it for any historical Indian scientists. —Ruud 06:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Britannica. Let's take as axiomatic some things about readers: (1) The majority of them are not experts in any topic. (2) If they are experts or enthusiasts, they may be experts in mathematics (who don't know IAST), not experts in Sanskrit (who know IAST), (3) The majority of them will not go looking for further reading, beyond the references in the article. So your argument isn't strong. Moreover, the romanisations aren't ad-hoc (they're lossy and non-invertible, but they're well-defined as maps), and often most readers' reading of the romanisation is closer to the real name than their reading of the IAST transliteration would be. Anyway, the fact that even historians of Indian mathematics like Takao Hayashi who would use IAST spellings in their scholarly works choose to use natural romanisations for encyclopedias should be sufficient illustration of what our guiding principle must be. Shreevatsa (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, if you do improve an article to have dozens of sources, I have no objection to your using whatever name is common. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that still mean we would at times have to "invent" a romanization for a topic which has so for only referred to by its transliteration. We would ideally have a audio recording for pronunciation. If a mathematician, who is no expert in Indic languages, does want to search for material related to the topic, a transliteration will be of much more use to him than a romanization as library search engines usually are unable to match the romanization given as search term against the transliteration present in the text or title of books and articles, or author field of a manuscript or its translation. In the future I will add additional references and reliable material for further reading, before renaming an article. Cheers, —Ruud 07:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Bhāskara II article at Britannica contains several transliterations? The author of Britannica's Aryabhata I article does use use transliterations in this paper. —Ruud 07:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's my point. As I said, the same authors who would use diacritic marks in a scholarly work don't do so in popular work like encyclopedias. This is because the readers of a journal may reasonably be expected to be aware of the field's conventions, while we cannot expect that of our encyclopedia's readers. (I still personally prefer using diacritic marks even on Wikipedia wherever ignoring marks gives a natural romanisation, because even inexpert readers can muddle through, but it must be admitted that readers unfamiliar with the marks will have to stumble over the words.) Anyway, improving sources is the more crucial concern than names of articles, so if there are enough sources in an article to determine the spelling, that's ideal. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Avicenna

Beste Ruud, het beginsel A plus B is C” kan alleen worden gebruikt als deze conclusie al eerder is getrokken in een betrouwbare bron die betrekking heeft op het in het artikel behandelde onderwerp. Ik heb een betrouwbare bron (Encyclopedia Iranica) aangegeven. De geschiedenis van Centraal Asie is divers en niemand mag iets van deze gechiedenis opeisen. Iranica gebruikt echter geen etnische afkomst van Avicenna, want dit kan leiden tot verwarring en misvatting. Groetjes, --Artacoana (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTHESIS allows "A and B, therefore C", only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. My reference to the definition of tajik DOES publish the same argument in the relation to the topic: Avicenna was a Persian, and Tajiks of his homeland are Persian people and therefore Avicenna was a Tajik too.--Artacoana (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting the article before we come to a compromise.--Artacoana (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avicenna ‎

User:Artacoana has reintroduced (Tajik) to Avicenna ‎citing trueknowledge.com, an authoress search engine mirroring Wikipedia and other online sources. This is a clear violation of WP:RS. When I tried to correct this, he reverted me, calling my edit "vandalism" , which is also a violation of WP:Civil. [1] I've tried my best to be accommodate this user and his concerns, but his aggressive posturing and editing is totally uncalled for. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism, because he (Kurd777) removed both of my edits. I had History of Civilizations of Central Asia as reference for the Bukharan origin of Avicenna, which is published by UNESCO.--Artacoana (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC):[reply]
I did no such thing. This is my edit [2], I only removed the non-RS trueknowledge.com. And dear Ruud Koot , what is with the new intro "whose native language was Persian". There are thousands of academic of sources about the Persian ethnicity and background of Avicenna on Google scholar and elsewhere. I don't see why we have to use such vague wording for the intro, in order to accommodate a disgruntled editor engaged in WP:Battle, and using WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar results

These are the Google Scholar results on Avicenna's background. These are all secondary academic sources, and they all label him as "Persian", nothing more, nothing less. Saying that merely "his language was Persian" is not reflective of the facts. Please change the lead, to reflect the academic consensus on this issue. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Encyclopedias are considered a Tertiary source , and should not be given more weight than academic secondary sources. Kurdo777 (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you search both words "Avicenna" and "Persian", of course you get your desired results where none of them is a valid source. This is not acceptable. The primary sources which are specialized in Iranian and Islamic studies say others:
  • Encyclopedia Iranica: AVICENNA, the Latin form of the name of the celebrated philosopher and physician of the Islamic world (NO REFERENCE TO PERSIAN ORIGIN)
  • The Encyclopedia of Islam: He was born in 370/980 in Afshana, his mother's home, near Bukhara. His native language was Persian. (NO REFERENCE TO PERSIAN ORIGIN)
  • History of Civilizations of Central Asia, V.4: The seminal writings of the philosopher-scientist Avicenna (a native of Bukhara) and the timeless masterpieces ... (NO REFERENCE TO PERSIAN ORIGIN)

--Artacoana (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ruud, the term "Persian" creates confusion and let Iranians to claim Avicenna for themselves. It's unfair, my friend. Why not using "Islamic" that includes all people of the region. We have reliable primary sources that use Islamic instead of Persian, so why not Wikipedia? --Artacoana (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ruud and sorry for interference.
User Artacoana, this issue should be discussed in it's place, here, not here. I invite involved users to stop here and resume there. Confusion by using the word Persian is just a self-interpretation; Nowadays there is no country in the name of Persia, but there is Tajikistan and using the word Tajik can be confusing much more than the word Persian!.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the fact that Iranica and Encycloapedia state "his native language is Persian" is sufficient. Native denotes ethnicity and should not be deleted. The book of Goodman which is a specialized book (actually better than Encycloapedias) also is clear: "Abu Ali Sina, the Persian scholar, physician, ..."(Avicenna By Lenn Evan Goodman). Even if people disagree withis intrepretation, at the same time, one should not remove other sources that use "Persian" which do not contradict Iranica and Encycloapedia of Islam. Those are scholarly sources as well and meet WP:RS. There are enough sources in google books and scholars with this regard. Also Artacoana's claim: "the term "Persian" creates confusion and let Iranians to claim Avicenna for themselves. It's unfair, my friend.", that is not the case. Check Persian people. One does not use modern nationalities for old scholars, tht is anachronism. The term Persian in its own time is clear (native Persian speaker as is the case of Avicenna even mentioned in the two Encycloapedias Artacoana cites). Thanks--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ruud, I don't understand your insistence on the application of Goodman's Avicenna as "a reliable source". Jūzjānī (980 - 1037) is a pupil and THE biographer of Avicenna, whose citations have been used by the medieval Islamic bio-bibliographer Ebn al-Qefṭī (in Taʾrīkh al-ḥokamā) as the source of his entries on the life of Avicenna. Taʾrīkh al-ḥokamā, "The History of Learned Men", was translated by J. Lippert in 1903. NOWHERE IN THIS VERY RELIABLE SOURCE CAN BE SEEN ANY REFERENCE TO THE PERSIAN ETHNICITY OF AVICENNA. As a result, the primary sources such as Iranica and the Encyclopedia of Islam have avoided using the term Persian for the ethnicity of Avicenna. The application of the term "Persian" is unfair and leads to the unfair claim of Iranians for these scholars, as today the Persian speaking Iranians are the only ones who are unfairly called Persian in the official statistics. This unfair application can lead to division and hatred among people of the region. Please let me know where I can complain.--Artacoana (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Iranica has it somewhere else: " Iranica has it in another section: "Avicenna (q.v.) was the first Persian physician to build on the Galeno-Hippocratic tradition rather than dogmatically adhering "[3]. Note Iranica does not even have the ethnicity of Ferdowsi [4].. So lack of something does not mean contradiction of something that exist. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Henry Corbin and Arthur John Arberry (his book is a translation of one of Avicenna's work and so more specialized) and the rest I mentioned are well known scholars. Of course it is better to have books solely on Avicenna(these books include that but sometimes more), but there are not too many in the literature. However, books specializing on Islamic Philosophy written by giant orientalists (Full Professors) on the specific topic (Islamic philosophy) meet WP:RS and are specialized enough. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good afteroon, the books I am quoting are very specialized book. See [[5]] (Avicenna on Theology [Paperback]) and [6]. Both of these are also giant orientalits Henry Corbin and Arthur John Arberry and they are more specialized than goodman. thank you.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

imposter users

Hi Ruud, can you please check these fake users or IP addresses and see whether they are duplicated?

Many thanks, --Artacoana (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, can you please check the user [9] to see if it's a dublicated one? It must be identical to the above IP adresses who is making new account to leave hateful comments (example) Cheers, --Artacoana (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Finitism

I'm confused by the fact tag you added there - it looks like the source provided is pretty thorough. Could you leave a note on the talk page explaining why you're worried? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Program analysis

I suggest you propose that Category:Static code analysis be renamed to Category:Static program analysis. To do that, see Wikipedia:Cfd#Procedure. (I reverted your edit that added that suggestion to the category page.) --Pnm (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Computer Science Categories

Why did you remove the word Neural Network from the artificial intelligence title and why did you remove software engineering? DMoE (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SBC and TRAK

Hi Ruud, thanks for reverting all those edits by Architectchao. I guess you are right, that he has been pushing his vision into a series of systems articles. I support the "Articles for deletion-nomination" of the SBC Architecture because it seems to be a promotion stunt. A second look at the sbc-architecture.org website made this even more clear to me.

There seems to be some similarities between SBC and TRAK and the user Wikitect. However at the moment I am quite positive about his work. Now I wonder at the Software architecture article, if you have a problem with the changes Wikitect made there? If not I would like to restore those.

Met vriendelijke groet -- Mdd (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Na bwc) It looks like TRAK should probably go as well. I generally don't worry too much about "non-notable" articles (if no one reads them what harm can they do?), but it seems inevitable that the authors start spamming links to them all over the place. That's definitely not acceptable. Groet, —Ruud 23:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For me there is a difference between those two. Wikitect made (what I consider) valuable contributions to the software architecture, enterprise architecture framework, view model and operational view articles. You are right that Wikitech also added the TRAK article to several articles. But he did a lot more. Personally I think Architectchao's work should be consider POV pushing, for example in the way he changed the lead of the system article. -- Mdd (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the edit by Wikitect because it included a link to TRAK, I don't have any opinion on the other changes he made at the same time tough, so feel free to restore them. —Ruud 23:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks I just did. Back to your first statement, I am still not sure I agree. I does look like it that TRAK has little notability. But I did some more searching and found several things: The one website with a wiki; a blog from Tom Graves about TRAK; a discussion group on Linked-In about it; and an other wiki at code.google.com.
Als je het niet erg vind schakel ik even over in het Nederlands. Persoonlijk vind ik het rondom TRAK interessant om te zien hoe zo iets elders opgezet wordt. Je hebt gelijk, dat het niet (nog) wikiwaardig genoeg is. Maar het ziet er in mijn ogen best redelijk verzorgt uit... en als ik me niet vergis kan zo'n opzet wel in Wikisource geplaatst worden. Op de Nederlands Wikipedia hebben we dat recentelijk ook gedaan met een opzet die daar niet paste. Wat mij betreft staat dat geheel hier niet echt in de weg. Met het beschikbaar stellen van ruimte hier, is Wikitech ook gaan nadenken over de algemene representatie hier, en dit soort medewerking acht ik persoonlijk toch ook erg waardevol. Zo heeft het denk ik verschillende plussen en minnen...!? -- Mdd (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ik heb er niet uitgebreid genoeg naar gekeken, maar ik vermoed dat het artikel een verwijderingsdebat niet zou overleven. Ook Wikisource heeft redelijk strikte regels omtrent wat wel en niet geaccepteerd wordt. Misschien dat Wikibooks en Wikiversity hier iets makkelijker mee omgaan. Maar goed, zolang de auteur niet te veel (negatieve) aandacht trekt en niemand op het idee komt om het artikel te nomineren voor verwijdering kan het nog best wel eens een poos blijven bestaan. —Ruud 00:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuses, ik bedoelde inderdaad Wikibooks. Zo'n opzet past inderdaad niet in Wikisource, want het is geen gepubliceerd werk. Nu kan ik dat vermoeden van je alleen maar bevestigen. Met de tijd zal het sowieso wel duidelijk worden of dit nu wel of niet wetenswaardig blijft. -- Mdd (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ruud, could you take an other look at the TRAK article. I think it hasn't improved, but has become worse because several links to commercial parties have been added. On the talk page the creator doesn't seem to see any problem. I could use some advice. -- Mdd (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nog dit. Ik krijg daar echt geen hoogte van wat daar aan de hand is? Of de auteur doet alsof zijn neus bloed, of hij begrijpt het helemaal niet. Het is toch een nieuwe ontwikkeling, die nog niet in de boeken is verschenen en als zodanig niet als encyclopediewaardig wordt aangemerkt hier?? -- Mdd (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive weed optimization algorithm

Hi. I was wondering why the article on Invasive weed optimization algorithm was removed? Thanks. - ARM (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any topic on Wikipedia needs to mentioned in several independent publications to be considered suitable for inclusion. Regards, —Ruud 21:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ruud, Thanks for your response. I believe if you carefully take a look at the references of the article you will "easily" find several "independent" publication in "qualified" and "internationally" accepted JOURNALS which have mentioned and employed the Invasive weed optimization algorithm in their work. In the following I provide you TWO of these publications:
  1. S. Karimkashi, A.A. Kishk, "Invasive Weed Optimization and its Features in Electromagnetics", IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1269-1278, 2010.
  2. A. R. Mallahzadeh, S. Es'haghi, H. R. Hassani, "Compact U-array MIMO antenna designs using IWO algorithm", International Journal of RF and Microwave Computer-Aided Engineering, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 568–576, 2009.
I am sure if you search on Google you will find many other "independent" articles who have used this algorithm. The original paper on this algorithm has been cited 44 times according to Scopus.
Please let me know if you could kindly put the article back. If you have any concerns please let me know. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.- ARM (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those 44 papers citing the original were not cited themselves, so it's a bit of a borderline case. The fact that the article didn't contain much information (apart from the list of papers) didn't really help either, but I see it was more extensive in a previous incarnation. I'll undelete the article and list it for discussion once more. —Ruud 00:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ruud. Thanks for your cooperation.- ARM (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Thanks for your comments. I would like to mention that a number of "independent" citations have cited other "independent" publications, who cited the original paper. For example, consider the following paper:
- A. R. Mallahzadeh, S. Es'haghi, A. Alipour, "Design of an E-Shaped MIMO Antenna Using IWO Algorithm for Wireless Application at 5.8 GHz", Progress In Electromagnetics Research, PIER 90, pp. 187–203, 2009.
This paper was cited 18 times according to Google ([10])
As another example, the following paper:
- S. Karimkashi, A. A. Kishk, "Invasive Weed Optimization and its Features in Electromagnetics", IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1269–1278, 2010.
is cited for 6 times according to Google ([11]).
Please note that the above-mentioned articles are published very recently. Thanks.- ARM (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to improve the article. But I am a little slow these days because of my studies. Thanks.- ARM (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SBC architecture and TRAK

Hi! Rudd:

I am sorry... that I may be pushing SBC too hard. I have been working on SBC architetcure for 20 years and have published many SBC architetcure-related books and papers (most in Chinese). If these papers (in Chinese) can be referred, then I may try to keep SBC architecture in Wikipedia. Otherwise, I may not be able to convince you guys that SBC architetcure is so different from TRAK .. or DODAF, or ToGAF .. etc.

I really want to tell you that the method used in SBC Architetcure is so good (all because it integrates structure and behavior, and all other architecture approaches are not able to accomplish this). Please let me know if I can use all those publications (in Chinese) to keep SBC architetcure alive in wikipedia.


Architectchao (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Are there any independent publications on SBC Architecture (i.e. books or papers not written by yourself?) There rule of thumb for establishing whether a topic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia is if people besides the original author or creator found the topic worthy enough to write about. —Ruud 13:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, 7 papers (in Chinese) and 30 theses are written and published by my graduate students. In such sense, maybe SBC Architecture is not strong enough to appear in Wikipedia. It is kind of difficult for SBC believers (most are Chinese) to edit the SBC architecture in Wikipedia. That is why I, myself, almost spent 6 months to update this title.

Architectchao (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine if you have this title deleted. I think I may try some other ways (instead of using wikipedia) to promote the SBC architecture. Thanks for your efforts.

Architectchao (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Industry

Your lucky that I don't mind your structural revert and change in the Computer Science article. I would however still include a section that talks about how computer science is applied in industry. Call it industry I suppose, its one thing to talk about sub-areas, its another to talk about how it applies to different sections of the economy. I know application is probably covered in the sub-articles themselves, but it would be nice to have a quick overview so people can get a sense of what computer science does in a quick glance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimoes (talk • contribs) 04:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

pi calculus

Hi Ruud. You just moved the pi calculus page to π-calculus. Are you aware that this move was proposed previously and unanimously opposed? The guidelines say "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial." ComputScientist (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That debate was a long time ago, the technical reasons for not moving it no longer apply. The standard works on this subject all use π-calculus. Also, as the discussion resulted in the article being moved to "pi calculus" (by analogy with lambda calculus) instead of the more widely used "pi-calculus" I could not take the discussion very seriously. Cheers, —Ruud 13:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruud_Koot&oldid=414068675"