Talk:List of cosmologists

message: This list is acrawl with redlinks. Do we purge it after a while, or just let them sit in case we are missing a notable nobody has gotten to yet? --Orange Mike 15:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This should be renamed List of notable cosmologists or somesuch and admission requirements should be a valid Wikipedia article verifying notability and either disallow relinks or require refs for each. As it is, who knows if those redlinks are notable or even cosmologists. Vsmith (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree. perhaps the name "list of physical cosmologists" or "list of modern cosmologists" id like to see each name on the list followed by their field of study (physics, astronomy, or general science like aristotle). should the list be only for experts in Physical cosmology, which is where cosmologist links to? would a buddhist or hindu philosopher be considered a cosmologist if they included world origin stories in their philosophy? how about all the metaphysicians that have proposed pseudoscientific world origin stories? and if not, should aristotle be included, as he was not fully a scientist, more of a logical speculator? (i know thats just my opinion, but im trying to point out the broad range of people who could be considered cosmologists). redlinks should be for OBVIOUS neglected articles, and should have at least 1 solid reference, that someone could go to and unambiguously say "this is a notable cosmologist who just hasnt had an article written yet." i would say tenured professors with an academic or popular book published. the lead (why is it spelled lede at times in talk pages?) should define cosmology, and who tends to be listed. i have a real dislike for leads which say to the reader "do not add names without refs" or "this list only contains people with WP articles" as this breaks the fourth wall, like saying "the reader should please note, john lennon was born in the UK". of course, putting comments like that as hidden, or on the talk page, make perfect sense to me. and i am willing to do some of the cleanup at some point. i just dont want to start making changes without some sort of consensus or evidence that other people are editing in the same direction as me. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename and tighten 

message: I've started adding one-line descriptions of each listed person's contributions to cosmology, much as we have for our disambiguation pages, to make this more like a list and less like a category. I'd welcome feedback on whether this is viewed to be helpful, and/or other more knowledgeable editors to carry on similarly with more of the entries. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: as long as the material you add is cited in the articles, yes, that's a good addition in my view. thanks for taking it on. its easy to see failings of articles, harder to do the work needed to improve. (as i havent done yet...)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longer entries 

message: As part of my expansion of each entry in this list (see above), I've been removing redlinks and unlinked names. Probably some of them really are notable as cosmologists, but without a bluelink I don't have enough information to write anything about what sort of cosmological contribution they made, so I've been removing them. Anyway, here's one that I removed despite being a bluelink: Peter Lynds. If I were to include him, judging from his article, what I would write about what he does would be something like "philosopher of time", but to me that seems far enough removed from cosmology that I've just removed him. If anyone disagrees, feel free to discuss it here.
I've also encountered articles on several people who are clearly on the fringes of the subject, but as long as they're bluelinked and their work is cosmological I'm including them. As far as I'm concerned, the inclusion or exclusion of fringe cosmologists should be done by our usual processes of discussing notability for articles rather than trying to enforce a higher standard of mainstream scientific respectability here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: PS There is a brief bit at the end of the article on Lynds that is cosmology, but it's based only on a single self-published (arxiv) paper by him with a small number of citations. It seems clear to me that there is no notability in his cosmological speculations, unlike the earlier stuff which got some popular press. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A removal from the list: Peter Lynds 

message: Good evening, gentlemen
This is to inform you that this article has now been translated into french and to thank all those who contributed to its elaboration.
Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: Is the absence of Galileo on purpose? Seems like he ought to be part of this list, or is there some reason he isn’t? Abel (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galileo Galilei