Talk:Analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to Systems science.
Systems rating:	Disambig Class	High importance	Field unassessed.
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Please also add comments to suggest improvements to the article.

This stub article was spun off from a disambiguation page originally at this location, now located at analysis (disambiguation).--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] history merge

The following entries in the history were in the redirect that was at this title, keep this in mind when interpreting diffs

• 20:17, 9 January 2008 (diff) . . R'n'B (Talk | contribs | block) (54 bytes) (db-movedab for malplaced disambiguation page)
• 05:39, 30 November 2007 (diff) . . East718 (Talk | contribs | block) (39 bytes) (afd)
• 16:28, 24 November 2007 (diff) . . SmackBot (Talk | contribs | block) (925 bytes) (Date/fix the maintenance tags or gen fixes using AWB)
• 01:04, 24 November 2007 (diff) . . Nousernamesleft (Talk | contribs | block) (904 bytes) (afd)
• 15:23, 19 November 2007 (diff) . . Jeodesic (Talk | contribs | block) (591 bytes) (Stub sort)
• 20:05, 18 November 2007 (diff) . . Father Goose (Talk | contribs | block) (583 bytes) (separated into stub article (this) and disambig page)
• 20:01, 18 November 2007 (diff) . . Father Goose (Talk | contribs | block) (39 bytes) (moved Analysis to Analysis (disambiguation) over redirect: going to split this into an article (analysis) and this disambig page)

—Random832 21:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Form of the article

I would recommend that this article take a more textual approach, explaining why analysis is important in a wide range of fields and how it is used in each. It seems particularly unsatisfying to me to subsist with two articles that might as well be called List of articles that include the word analysis and List of articles that include the word analytic or analytical. I like to sort things more than most folks, but the analysis article could be so much more than it is at the moment. There are many forms of analysis that belong in this article that don't have the word analysis, analytic, or analytical in them: game theory, heuristics, inductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning? What about simulation, scientific modelling, brainstorming, mindmap, Red Team, negotiation theory, timeline studies, intelligence, problem solving, and on and on. I'm willing to help on fixing it over the long term, if others are interested in going in that direction with this article. I can contribute on the qualitative side of things, but I lack background to do much good on the quantitative, math and hard sciences side. --Pat (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You better believe I endorse that suggestion. I tried to get that started a few months ago by splitting it into a stub article and the current disambiguation page, but a spasm of myopia interceded. Wikipedia should unmistakably have an actual article on the general subject of "analysis", and I will support your efforts in any way I can.--Father Goose (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is thesis writing time for me through end of April, but I'll add what I can til then and begin work in earnest over the summer. I'll try talking it up at grad school to see if I can enlist recruits, but we're all unfortunately in the same boat. Maybe the first years? I'm glad you agree. --Pat (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a sample workup using the Chemistry section. How does that look? I used the see also feature, then drew in other ideas. I'm not a chemist, so that section can be reworked if I got it wrong. But the concept of text instead of list is the main point. --Pat (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent way to approach it. I changed the section headings a bit to get away from the "disambiguation" format style. I'll do some copyediting later and maybe convert a section or two myself. Thanks for getting the work underway.--Father Goose (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What is now not even english: "As a formal concept, the method has variously been ascribed to Ibn al-Haytham,[1] Descartes (Discourse on the Method), Galileo, and Isaac Newton, as a practical method of physical discovery." Should read: "As a formal concept, the method has variously been ascribed to Ibn al-Haytham,[1] Descartes (Discourse on the Method) and Galileo. It has also been ascribed to Isaac Newton, but only as a practical method of physical discovery (which he did not name or formally describe.)" I believe someone with lamentably low language skills edited out the original meaning and left us with an impossible grammatical construction to boot. So I've added in some tedious disambiguation to try to foolproof the sentence from futher "improvement" at the cost of time and ease of reading - but I can't make this change so could someone else do so please? Ndaniels (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone removed the Chemistry section completely and added what looked like an ad for an organization. I restored the Chemistry section and did some work on the Literature and Mathematics sections. --Pat (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)