Create talk page! Gah4 ( talk) 00:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I presume we we are supposed to edit it. Mostly it looks fine, though I didn't read it in the finest details, and didn't try to make a direct comparison. Gah4 ( talk) 01:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
as a reply to your request on my talk page:
yeah, this definitely looks good for all things "not shannon". but now the original article communication theory has evolved to concentrate on information theory. so either you have to rename this latter one or your article. i would propose adding qualifiers like communication theory (information theory), which of course is bad, all the more so since most people would expect an immediate redirect to information theory anyway OR communication theory (sociology), which again is only half satisfactory. given that the encyclopedia by littlejohn et al roughly speaking subsumes inf.theory just as you do under the wider heading of communication, i would probably do neither of the two and take care that the existing contents are cautiously migrated to a 'communication' paragraph in inf.theory and then copy over your contribution instead. but this is just an idea. -- Kku ( talk) 08:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
You posted on my Talk Page asking for feebback. I replied there - then thought you might not see it! So, this is what I have written there:
After all this time I still struggle with fluency on wikipedia. Did my reply ping you successfully, making this post redundant?
LookingGlass ( talk) 20:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Create talk page! Gah4 ( talk) 00:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I presume we we are supposed to edit it. Mostly it looks fine, though I didn't read it in the finest details, and didn't try to make a direct comparison. Gah4 ( talk) 01:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
as a reply to your request on my talk page:
yeah, this definitely looks good for all things "not shannon". but now the original article communication theory has evolved to concentrate on information theory. so either you have to rename this latter one or your article. i would propose adding qualifiers like communication theory (information theory), which of course is bad, all the more so since most people would expect an immediate redirect to information theory anyway OR communication theory (sociology), which again is only half satisfactory. given that the encyclopedia by littlejohn et al roughly speaking subsumes inf.theory just as you do under the wider heading of communication, i would probably do neither of the two and take care that the existing contents are cautiously migrated to a 'communication' paragraph in inf.theory and then copy over your contribution instead. but this is just an idea. -- Kku ( talk) 08:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
You posted on my Talk Page asking for feebback. I replied there - then thought you might not see it! So, this is what I have written there:
After all this time I still struggle with fluency on wikipedia. Did my reply ping you successfully, making this post redundant?
LookingGlass ( talk) 20:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)