Talk:Reproducibility: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Petréa Mitchell (Article checklist; ditch the JIR link) |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{subpages}} | ||
}} | |||
The "wikipedia" template is redundant and therefore deprecated now. Please check the "Content is from Wikipedia?" box. | The "wikipedia" template is redundant and therefore deprecated now. Please check the "Content is from Wikipedia?" box. | ||
| Line 17: | Line 7: | ||
==Ditch the JIR link?== | ==Ditch the JIR link?== | ||
It seems to me that the ''Journal of Irreproducible Results'', despite the name, really isn't topical here. [[User:Petréa Mitchell|Petréa Mitchell]] 14:51, 12 May 2007 (CDT) | It seems to me that the ''Journal of Irreproducible Results'', despite the name, really isn't topical here. [[User:Petréa Mitchell|Petréa Mitchell]] 14:51, 12 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
I noticed that this article appeared not to be describing science as it is performed (at least in my experience), so have begun to alter it.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:39, 7 September 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:35, 14 November 2007
The "wikipedia" template is redundant and therefore deprecated now. Please check the "Content is from Wikipedia?" box.
In fact, if you look at [1] you'll see that only a few Wikipedia-sourced articles use this template; we should delete all instances, and make sure the box is checked. --Larry Sanger 18:24, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
Ditch the JIR link?
It seems to me that the Journal of Irreproducible Results, despite the name, really isn't topical here. Petréa Mitchell 14:51, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
I noticed that this article appeared not to be describing science as it is performed (at least in my experience), so have begun to alter it.Gareth Leng 09:39, 7 September 2007 (CDT)