User:APH

I used to write as 62.90.40.50 but now I have this account.

I plan to work any topic that I'll find interesting. Somehow, I worked mostly on computer science until now.

The List of important publications in computer science is my favorite. I'll explain more about it and its goals when I'll have sometime.

Template:MultiLicensePD

---

Sorry for posting this here, your talk page cannot be saved due to spam filter issues

Important pubs in medicine

Hello APH. You're doing an admirable job in trying to collate all important publications in a large number of fields. I am unhappy, however, with the links you're creating. Let me explain: you edited radiology, linking to an as-yet unfilled section in List of publications in medicine. This does not add anything to the information on the page. I can only guess that your intention is that someone will - one day - fill this section. My view is that until then, you shouldn't link to them.
Many articles have their "breakthrough publications" mentioned in the article body. Diabetes mellitus, for example, contains good references to a number of major publications in the understanding of that disease. I try to always find correct references for major scientific discoveries - they add legitimacy and informative value to articles.
Please do not take this as disapproval of your project. My only objection is against linking to empty sections. JFW | T@lk 09:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jfdwolff,

Indeed, I'm putting these links, hopping that someone will add such publications.

The reasons that I'm forced to do it is that I don't have to ability to add the proper publications in every one of these fields.

I also not very thrilled from putting a link to an empty section.

What do you think of the following idea?

In every list of publications, I'll put the proper subtopics, many of them will be empty.

I'll put reference to the section in the list only for full sections.

In the rest of the topics, I'll put a reference to the list itself. That way people will not get empty section but a full list. Those interested will be able to fill the section and update the links. APH 07:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm sorry again for not talking on your "talk" page. Perhaps removing the HTML anchor tag will stop the spamblocker from engaging every time someone tries to save it.
You see, I'm in favour of a list of publications in medicine, but I also feel that excessive links cause clutter. Could you agree to a general link from the medicine page, and then only section links from those subfields where articles have been added? I still think this is the best way in the long run.
The list of publications is likely to get very long - every field as a large number of very influential papers. You might start off by looking at diabetes mellitus, where I've added some seminal articles to the "history" section. In principle, these can simply be copied to the list of publications! JFW | T@lk 15:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to take care of my talk page. I think that links to the empty sections are the most important links. They are necessary to direct people that familiar with the field to the list, hoping that one of them will contribute to it. Why do you consider links from these topics (to the list and not to empty section) problematic?

I saw the list of papers at diabetes mellitus. I think that they should be added but personally I cannot say why they are important or what is their thesis. Can you take care of that?

The list can be quite long but the separation to topics allows quick navigation. Take a look at list of publications in computer science. This is the oldest and longest list and one can navigate in it quite easily. APH 09:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm getting more convinced that a list spanning all of medicine is inexhaustive. Medicine has been undergoing much more changes in that last 50 years than computer science has under the last 20. Any list of publications would be very long.

I understood from the beginning that in your view, "links to the empty sections are the most important links". I disagree with this. Links are there to provide information, no to solicit it (unless it is a red link).

I can't promise when I'll sort out the diabetes links. JFW | T@lk 09:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Red links might be a good solution. Is there a way to create a red link to non-existing section in existing list? Computer science is much younger than all the other field in the list and that alone will probably lead to a lower number of important publications. I think that the more publications in a field, the more important is the list. Think of someone with some background in a field, wanting to learn about unfamiliar sub field. Such a list will be valuable to him.

By the way, can you write now in my talk page? APH 10:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

APH, I still believe such a list is important, but you'll have to be very selective about what goes on it.

Red links to sections are probably impossible.

Your talk page is still broken. You may have to delete some old comments that engage the spam filter (especially the [A] tag). JFW | T@lk 10:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I deleted my talk page contents. Writing there should be ok. Let's take some time to think about a solution to the links. APH 11:10, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)