Talk:Mark Barr

message: The phi connection with William Schooling might be clarified in some of the books hits around 1910–1915 here. Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: These are addictive -- the guy was very clever. EEng 04:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, well let me know if you change your mind. (The phyllotaxis publication does make it seem more likely that I've identified the right Field.) EEng 05:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More possible sources 

message: The JIEE obituary says that Mark Barr became a member of the IEE in 1906. This page of elected members from 1906, however, lists James Mark Barr but not Mark Barr. I have the strong impression that JMB is a different person from around the same time. For instance, everything I see about JMB's contributions involves signal processing, waves, and telegraphy, while MB's work is much more electromechanical. Maybe the obituary claim is a mistake? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree, but unless important issues hang on the IEE membership question, we can just put it to one side. We may stumble onto something that resolves it. EEng 05:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, fellow editors! I guess we'll have to re-run a lot of searches, but that's the price of progress. EEng 08:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

text: This paper by JMB has Central Technical College as the affiliation. So unless there were two people by the same name in the same school at the same time (not impossible but unlikely) it's the same guy. I have changed my mind: he seems to have used the "James Mark Barr" name for his student work in the period 1892-1895 at CTC, which was more focused on waves and electromagnetics. I don't see a lot of reason to cite the paper in our article, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed your mind about what? Aren't we agreed these are the same guy? EEng 21:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Changed my mind about my initial post in this section, the "strong impression" that JMB (the signal processing guy) was different than MB. They now appear to be the same person writing under slightly different names. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  IEE membership, and James Mark vs Mark 

message: In Mathematical Circus p.165 Martin Gardner writes that Mark Barr invented and published in 1913 the "Fibonacci numbers of higher order" described at Generalizations of Fibonacci numbers. I haven't yet added this to the article because I'm hoping to triangulate from more sources, but this seems worth adding both here and at the generalizations article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Still haven't tracked it down, but Gardner writes in a different piece (the Scientific American Vol. II book cited already, p.101): "Stephen Barr, whose father Mark Barr gave phi its name, sent me a clipping of an article by his father (in the London Sketch, about 1913) in which the concept of phi is generalized as follows..." (then proceeding to describe the Fibonacci numbers of higher order). So we're a little closer to an actual citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fibonacci sequences of higher order 

message: DE, do you have this? If not I'll get it.  I think it's him -- from snippet, birthplace Pennsylvania and birthyear are right. EEng 22:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Also it's the journal of the Century Association, which had only 100 members including him. It's definitely him. We have some volumes of that journal but not the right volume. It looks like I could get it through interlibrary loan but if Harvard has it that might be quicker. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Century Club, how clever. On my list. Don't forget the Glass Flowers, if you don't mind. EEng 23:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Century 

message: *Field (not pursuing unless we think it's important)
*Who's Who from lifetime instead of Who Was Who -- also a pain if we don't know in what year(s) he appeared
*Index at Harvard archives -- Followup: Someone's checking this for me. EEng 01:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Followup: One of my friends in low places has checked -- nothing in the main archives. However, there's a satellite archives at the Business School which I should also talk to. If I don't get back to you by Thursday, remind me. EEng 00:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Well, I finally followed up on this, and Harvard Business School shows him as a research assistant there around 1927. And how did we miss this? There are several directions to take this in; I have some special burdens for the next few weeks, and I'll be traveling some, but I'll get to the bottom of this in due course. EEng 20:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Right, thanks for the reminder. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: FTR you got back to me on that elsewhere, reporting that there really aren't any cites along those lines. EEng 01:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: EEng's to-get list

message: Just pointing it out. Weird it's lacking in a "Good Article" --Loganmac (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No article needs an infobox, and having an infobox is specifically not one of the Good Article criteria. See also WP:DISINFOBOX — very frequently, the addition of an infobox makes an article worse, not better. Also, WP:ALLROADSLEADTOINFOBOXES. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not judging good article criteria man, just pointing out I found it weird since I'm certain it's the first notable biography I've seen without one. That's all. --Loganmac (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs an infobox