Wikipedia talk:Missing science topics

message: Hi, Please take a look at how the older project WP:PMEX is organized -- as I like that organization much better.  The pages have links to the other encyclopedia, and also have a status indicator ... is the other article more complete, less complete? Has anyone even looked at it? When was it last looked at? Who looked at it? I think that the effort here could benefit from that level of formality. linas 15:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:PMEX]]

message: The list of Weisstein articles has been removed because of copyright concerns, but in case anyone cares, as of 11/21/05, Wikipedia is missing approximately 49 chemistry, 167 astronomy and 1,120 physics articles that Weisstein Encyclopedia has. I've made a lot of redirects, and a few articles, that have made large reductions in the amount of apparently missing articles. Some of the redirects were for different capitalization or singular/plural, but some were for alternative names. Most were obvious and probably should have been made by the article's creator. A couple entries and redirects within Weisstein were nonsense and aren't counted. The physics article number is so high because it is much bigger than the chemistry and astronomy sections and I've only just started doing redirects and creating articles for it. In all three subjects, Weisstein has a bunch of articles that are just placeholders, which are counted in the missing article numbers for now. They consist of just an "under construction" notice. Also, some of the articles in the encyclopedias probably shouldn't have articles in Wikipedia. -- Kjkolb 16:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weisstein progress 

message: I have a list of missing science articles, if anyone is interested. There are terms from just about every discipline, though a large portion are related to energy. I prefer to keep it on my userspace because I am fixing errors, removing inappropriate terms and adding new ones. Once I do most of the fixes, hopefully in a week or two, I may split the list up so that it will load faster. However, right now it's easier for me to work on it this way. If you duplicate the list, I strongly recommend that you check for updates to avoid wasted effort. -- Kjkolb 17:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are still doing internal improvements keep if off the main article space, but when the puppy is ready, I'd be glad to see it as part of WP:MEA.  I would recommend putting it under the "Specialized hotlists" and splitting it into pages of about 500 or so.  May I recommend this as a guide.  Thanks for compiling the list.  --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing science articles

message: I have removed the following items:
# Smarandache Ceil Function possibly Smarandache ceil function (wikisearch; web; books)
# Smarandache Constants possibly Smarandache constants (wikisearch; web; books)
# Smarandache Function possibly Smarandache function (wikisearch; web; books)
# Smarandache Near-to-Primorial Function possibly Smarandache near-to-primorial function (wikisearch; web; books)
# Smarandache Paradox possibly Smarandache paradox (wikisearch; web; books)
# Smarandache Sequences possibly Smarandache sequences (wikisearch; web; books)
# Smarandache-Kurepa Function possibly Smarandache-kurepa function or Smarandache-Kurepa function (wikisearch; web; books)
# Smarandache-Wagstaff Function possibly Smarandache-wagstaff function or Smarandache-Wagstaff function (wikisearch; web; books)
Please see User:Smarandache fan for more information. ---CH 07:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Curbing Smarandache self-promotion

message: So what should we do if we just made a red link go blue? For example, I just turned Ornstein isomorphism theorem and Ornstein's theorem blue on the Maths20 page. Should I now remove these links? Will Oleg's bot do this automatically at some point? Instructions on this page are quite unclear as to what to do with these lists.  (BTW, I made them blue by redirecting to an existing article, which explains things far better than the mathworld entry, but not as well as the Springer entry, written by Ornstein himself). linas 03:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bot will every now and then remove the bluelinks. Instructions are unclear, meaning do whatever you wish. :) In a short while I will make the bot update the math lists periodically. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instructions ??? 

message: It was mentioned above  a year or so ago that blue links indicate articles still in need of improvement, or more precisely major improvement. I gather that this is no longer the case, and we should remove the links entirely after we have made the article of the redirect. 
That would make more sense--articles most in need of improvement are signified other ways.    
DGG 03:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bot does remove regularly the blue links from the math articles. Now there are a few, but not many, see for example Wikipedia:Missing_science_topics/Maths3/ Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: blue links

message: I'm currently involved in a discussion about a redirect and the question has come up as to whether every topic from MathWorld needs to be included in W:MST. There was a claim that MathWorld is a "known source of neologisms", the implication being that many of the article names there which were carried over to W:MST should just be deleted instead of an article or redirect created for them. My feeling is, neologism or not, if there is a source for the topic which is recognized as reliable by a reasonable number of Wikipedians, then it at least merits a redirect. So my questions are these, what what the process used to decide which sources to use in the W:MST and was there a consensus that they were suitable? Also, is there a policy on simply deleting links from the list without creating a article or a link?--RDBury (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of sources 

message: Hi, I noticed you were all using .  I just wanted to tell you all I recently completed a much more customizable template, called .  I consider it to be better than the latter, as, as said, it is a bit more customizable, and, as I have yet to say, user friendly.  For Progress bar, you must do the math yourself in order to figure out how far along you are on your track.  For the one I finished making, all you have to do is specify the current value, and if the goal value is larger than 100, the goal value.  Otherwise, if you do not specify the goal value, it defaults to 100.
Take for example the way you are using .  You have to manually find out what percentage the current value is of the goal value, and as such, you type out: , which gets:
For the one that I have been working on, , you can simply give it the current value, and the goal value(if it is larger than 100(exactly 100)).  You would then type out:
And you would get:
However, please note that the above is just an example, you can have it be any width, whether it be a % or distance in pixels, and you can have it be any height, in pixels(% has been tried, can't work).  Take for instance, how the following code:
gets:
..  I hope you can find it useful.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: This page is much more confusing than others I've seen.  For example, the math & statistics section doesn't have any lists?  Are we saying the entire subject of math is complete?  -KaJunl (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The requested math and stats articles are at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics. --Mark viking (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am confused