Talk:D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 07:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, this article is quite inadequate. More details are needed on Thompson's life. The article should mention his translation of Aristotle's History of Animals and how it influenced his ideas on biology (if it did). The discussion of On Growth and Form could perhaps be moved to a separate article. Grommel (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey you guys, what's stopping you? Quit complaining and get to work!--24.85.68.231 (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: there is plenty more to say about the book and its impact. An expansion of the nautilus shell example that has become a staple of textbooks seems in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.227.185 (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... just happened to notice my comment above from four years ago. (How time flies!) Sorry, I should have made it clear that I don't have the expertise to revise the article myself; I am neither an amateur biologist nor an amateur historian. I sought only to provide some ideas for someone who does have the needed expertise. Grommel (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

ty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.22.129.136 (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Photo request

Just responding to the photo request response to tag. Yes, there's a photo, but it's very low-res. I guess we can remove the tag, but somebody who's going to an archive (like University Dundee in the UK) should try to find an open-domain photograph to scan. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Why use just the first name?

Much of the text uses just the first name. It reads like it was written by someone who was best buddies with him back in the day. Why not "Thompson" or "Sir D'Arcy"? David Marjanović (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, someone had made a bit of a mess of it. I've used Thompson or pronouns throughout. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Wolframm work on the topic?

Is the short summary accurate? I was able to read the blog post, but unable to access the book? If Wolframm truly states something to the effect that evolution has *no* role in organism shape, rather than acting via mechanical/developmental forces, then it should be deleted under WP:FRINGE. HCA (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It does indeed sound distinctly fringiferous. I hope that all he meant was that he was excited to see how Thompson pioneered the use of mathematical models of growth. If he's indeed using it to deny evolution/climate change/North Korean astronauts etc then the bin'll be the right place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Category

Chiswick Chap, your revert is unreasonable: it's already supported by the realiable source in the article about the association. — INS Pirat (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

No, "Wikipedia is not a reliable source". Articles are therefore not allowed to rely on what may be in some other article. In this case the other article was/is not even linked! – but a link is not a solution, for the reason just given; reliably-cited text, in this article, is what policy mandates. If you don't like the Wikipedia policy, feel free to go to its talk page and propose a change (good luck with that). Otherwise, the policy stands, and the category is not appropriate unless and until the fact that it asserts is demonstrated to be valid in the article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say that Wikipedia is a reliable source, I referred to the properly cited text.#

Referring to another Wikipedia article IS asserting that Wikipedia is a reliable source.

What policy mandates that? (it's not WP:RS, which doesn't mention categorization) In other words, why do you think that categorization should depend on the specific version of an article? — INS Pirat (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You are very argumentative. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, which is itself an essay, but it is explaining policy, namely WP:UGC, which is indeed part of WP:RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but your links are not relevant. I didn't refer to the "user-generated content". The list has a reference to the reliable source. Ultimately, the one this categorization is based on. The statement in WP:UGS "In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source" is not any expository and adds nothing to the mention in the third-to-last sentence that the Wikipedia content is user-generated. While the point of the WP:WINRS essay is that one article shouldn't rely upon the inherently unstable text in another one. So it actually kinda supports my view that the categories shouldn't depend on the specific version of an article. What about putting that general reference in the category page itself (I know it's not what is usually done)? Would that make any difference to you? — INS Pirat (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody said you did. It just happens to be the policy and where the thing points. You are right that a ref is needed, but no, you can't put it anywhere but here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

If nobody said that, then why did you mention WP:UGC? Where is "here"? Unfortunately, you still don't address my points. — INS Pirat (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

First line of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so as to point you to the relevant place. To be crystal clear, all of Wikipedia (indeed, every public Wiki) consists of User-Generated Content, so cannot be taken as reliable; linking to anything in it, as the policy says, therefore does not confer reliability: only a direct citation can do that. This is the key point. No editor, me or anyone else, can grant exceptions to this policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

the third D'Arcy

the first sentence currently says: Thompson was born at 3 Brandon Street in Edinburgh to Fanny Gamgee (sister of Sampson Gamgee) and D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson (1829–1902), Classics Master at Edinburgh Academy and later Professor of Greek at Queen's College, Galway. (Note: A D'Arcy Wentworth (1762–1827) narrowly escaped conviction on a fourth charge of highway robbery by volunteering for transportation to Australia as an assistant surgeon in June 1790.)

my question is about the third D'Arcy Wentworth (1762–1827), who is in the note - how is he related to the D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson? I understand that D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson (Galway) was his father, but I don't understand who's the third D'arcy. (and the note is also unsourced). Artem.G (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the note, it's not germane to the article. I'll chop it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

thanks! I wanted to remove it but decided to check first :)

by the way, you may have noticed newly uploaded photos that's are in PD according to the University of St Andrews Libraries and Museums ("Free of known copyright restrictions."). The photo used in the infobox marked as "We believe that most of the images are in the public domain". I suggest to upload it to commons, but I think it would be deleted. Should fair use one be deleted too? I'm really bad in image copyright laws, so not sure what can be done here. Artem.G (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds a bit doubtful. Fair use images cannot be held on Commons; they can be moved to Wikipedia with a suitable Non-Free Use Rationale, provided they are also in use in at least one article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)