Talk:Microfluidics/Archive
Books section
editI'm in favor of axing the books list. I put up a nice review article from Quake's group that will cover the needs of almost everyone. If someone wants a book, they should go to their bookseller of choice and search for "microfluidics," to have all these and more pop up. Having them here is redundant, and detracts from the more useful (and publicly available via the Author's site) review article. - Cubic Hour (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
CAD
editAnyone else feel the CAD section should be deleted? It's out of place. (And, as a side issue, it's not even relevant, CFD for microfluidic chips isn't too hard, biochemistry included or not)
Journal Articles
editI don't think the journal articles should be there at all. At most, put up a link to a review. But several (and the original list had someone oddly fixated on digital microfluidics) of these shouldn't be on a wikipedia site.
Source
editThis article includes text from Krishnendu Chakrabarty's column in the ACM SIGDA e-newsletter.
Richard Fair, Fei Su and Vamsee Pamula also contributed to the original text which can be found at [1] and was wikified by Igor Markov.
LMoved from article --Steve (Slf67) talk 12:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed advertisements
editI removed the advertisement web links from the External Information section Desoto1 19:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
New Images
editNote the new images I have provided, it may be suitable for replacing the advertising-like image at the start of the article. - Zephyris Talk 00:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
External Links
editThe external links have been periodically deleted by User:WLU. I'm going to take this to mean there's not consensus they should be there. I'm of the opinion they should be, and that the WP:EL (which is an acronym that will probably be bandied about here pretty soon, referring to the attempted consensus wikipedia policy on external links) isn't as relevant to a field of active research. I'll wait for some other comments before explaining further though --Cubic Hour (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've deleted per WP:EL, mostly links that are to organizations and labs. Why would our guideline for external links not apply to this page? There's guidance on what should and should not be here and I don't see a reason to not refer to and follow the guidelines. If you've got a reason why the links should be included, please write it up, I'll be happy to provide a reason why I don't think specific links should be included. WLU (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- My main reason for wanting to keep (at least some) of them up, was that, since it's a new(ish) field, and the page doesn't list most of what these groups have actually been up to, providing the links gives a way to get some more timely information on the subject (an easy link to current events, more ot less). However, I completely agree there's really no need to have a link to a page that is just contact info or biographical info, and the EL section certainly shouldn't be longer than the article itself. So, as a compromise, how about we keep these up for a month (until let's say, May 5th). In that time, I'll attempt to wikify as many as I can (go through the group site, find relevant research information, and put it into an article). After that time, I'll back off on the issue. (also, let's keep the Talk:Lab-on-a-chip page discussion on EL here too, just for simplicity).--Cubic Hour (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- The best way to integrate the work of the groups is by citing their work, not including a link to the company mainpage. The reader doesn't get any information from a dozen links saying 'this company/group does work on micro fluidics', but several footnotes saying 'uses of microfluids currently being pursued includes...' or something otherwise meaningful. Otherwise the invitation is to fill the EL section with spam from every company selling chips. Is the field reported in journals or citeable on-line engineering reports? There's lots of wikipedia pages that have citations representing the cutting edge of research including e-publications appearing ahead of physical print. If it's a bleeding edge field, then perhaps the companies/groups themselves can be cited (though that's close to a primary source and not a good choice). Journals are better at capturing a field than individual companies/groups, and don't rely on a synthesis to make any claims about the work or field. Manufacturers are particularly problematic - given that they exist to sell something, it's a very clear violation of WP:ELNO #5. As links should be kept to a minimum per Wikipedia:External_links#Important_points_to_remember #1, what do you think is the minimum you consider essential, then the next 'level' of good to have? WLU (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with most of what you're saying. It's ugly, and not very encyclopedic to have all those links there. My only real counter is that it is, in reality, useful information. So, until I'm able to put it to better use in the article, what would you think if we delete all of them from this article now, and make a new page to the effect of "Lists of Microfluidics research groups," (in the model of List_of_Systems_Biology_Research_Groups) that conforms to Wikipedia:Featured_list_criteria. I think that should make us both happy. The information stays readily available, but will be judged by the standards of any other list.--Cubic Hour (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Useful for who, and in what way? By having the lists there it gives the appearance of wikipedia 'approving' the link, when in reality we have no way of knowing if the links are comprehensive, if they're high quality or not, etc. And links should be informative, not just there. I'm also confused about the existence of lists of external links - from my understanding lists were just for internal links and a recent comment at WP:WPLIST gave me the impression that I was right. I'm going to look into this a bit more. I may AFD List of Systems Biology Research Groups as a testcase. WLU (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- A comment - WP:WIAFL seems to imply that the list be made up of links to articles, meaning a list of solely external links is inappropriate. But there's no real guidance, which frustrates me. WLU (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and made the move. Let's have any further discussion about this at List of Microfluidics Research Groups--Cubic Hour (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- WIAFL doesn't imply internal links, it explicitly demands them. Internal links to articles is all that matters. Colin°Talk 20:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and made the move. Let's have any further discussion about this at List of Microfluidics Research Groups--Cubic Hour (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- A comment - WP:WIAFL seems to imply that the list be made up of links to articles, meaning a list of solely external links is inappropriate. But there's no real guidance, which frustrates me. WLU (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Useful for who, and in what way? By having the lists there it gives the appearance of wikipedia 'approving' the link, when in reality we have no way of knowing if the links are comprehensive, if they're high quality or not, etc. And links should be informative, not just there. I'm also confused about the existence of lists of external links - from my understanding lists were just for internal links and a recent comment at WP:WPLIST gave me the impression that I was right. I'm going to look into this a bit more. I may AFD List of Systems Biology Research Groups as a testcase. WLU (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with most of what you're saying. It's ugly, and not very encyclopedic to have all those links there. My only real counter is that it is, in reality, useful information. So, until I'm able to put it to better use in the article, what would you think if we delete all of them from this article now, and make a new page to the effect of "Lists of Microfluidics research groups," (in the model of List_of_Systems_Biology_Research_Groups) that conforms to Wikipedia:Featured_list_criteria. I think that should make us both happy. The information stays readily available, but will be judged by the standards of any other list.--Cubic Hour (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- The best way to integrate the work of the groups is by citing their work, not including a link to the company mainpage. The reader doesn't get any information from a dozen links saying 'this company/group does work on micro fluidics', but several footnotes saying 'uses of microfluids currently being pursued includes...' or something otherwise meaningful. Otherwise the invitation is to fill the EL section with spam from every company selling chips. Is the field reported in journals or citeable on-line engineering reports? There's lots of wikipedia pages that have citations representing the cutting edge of research including e-publications appearing ahead of physical print. If it's a bleeding edge field, then perhaps the companies/groups themselves can be cited (though that's close to a primary source and not a good choice). Journals are better at capturing a field than individual companies/groups, and don't rely on a synthesis to make any claims about the work or field. Manufacturers are particularly problematic - given that they exist to sell something, it's a very clear violation of WP:ELNO #5. As links should be kept to a minimum per Wikipedia:External_links#Important_points_to_remember #1, what do you think is the minimum you consider essential, then the next 'level' of good to have? WLU (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- My main reason for wanting to keep (at least some) of them up, was that, since it's a new(ish) field, and the page doesn't list most of what these groups have actually been up to, providing the links gives a way to get some more timely information on the subject (an easy link to current events, more ot less). However, I completely agree there's really no need to have a link to a page that is just contact info or biographical info, and the EL section certainly shouldn't be longer than the article itself. So, as a compromise, how about we keep these up for a month (until let's say, May 5th). In that time, I'll attempt to wikify as many as I can (go through the group site, find relevant research information, and put it into an article). After that time, I'll back off on the issue. (also, let's keep the Talk:Lab-on-a-chip page discussion on EL here too, just for simplicity).--Cubic Hour (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Moved
editHi I moved the "List of Systems Biology Research Groups" towards the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems/List of Systems Biology Research Groups" in the WikProject Systems main space. I am more then willing to facilitate any other related lists, and make some connections. These lists are world wide one of a kind and can really help to understand what is going on the world today. -- Mdd (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused about the Bio systems AFD, so I've asked User:Neil for a comment - I don't know him very well, but I believe he's active on AFD a lot. I've also unlinked mainspace references to the wikiproject page - it's a valid resource for the wikiproject, but it kinda avoids the whole point of an AFD if its still linked as a mainspace article. I'll be cross-posting this on related pages touched by the discussion to see what kind of input comes up. WLU (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is a bit ridiculous, I'll try to centralize discussion over at WP:WPLIST. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#List of Systems Biology Research Groups WLU (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)