Talk:Lists of scientists

[Untitled]

I think it would be great to have more regional categorizations just like the 'Scottish Scientists' section. Maybe broken down like this?...

---

Do we need a general "List of scientists" and lists of physicists, biologists, chemists, etc. Can this be disaggregated and deleted ? dml

"Scientists" is way too broad and is therefore useless (lists of physicists, biologists, chemists, etc are fine though). This page is as useful as a list of authors would be. --mav

---

Done, the list has been disaggregated to the specific categories. dml

Coolness - nice work. --mav

List of inventors? List of jurists?!

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something here, but why are inventors on this list, they surely would be closer to Engineers rather than scientists? Also, jurists? Why are they here?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.132.162 (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC) conzere wos ere 2k8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.4.116 (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion?

I proposed this for deletion with the reason: Page is completely useless as-is, because of staggeringly poor world coverage and even if it was comprehensive it is not clear that it would be notable. It has basically been a target of vandals for at least the last year and shows no signs of going anywhere. Can someone explain what the point of this article is supposed to be. This really seems like it should be a category, what's the article here? Thanks, — sligocki (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This would make more sense as List of scientists, then it could be like List of inventors, which is a nice list. But what's the point of list of lists? Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that it would be a very good idea to have one big merged list, like List of inventors--but each of them would be much more useful as sortable tables. However, the problem is that there are many more of them than there are of inventors--possibly so many as to make the table too large to load easily. The question then is whether there is also a need for the lists by discipline and by country, and if so, where to we give people a guide to which ones are available. If we cannot do a sortable table, then I think we do certainly do need separate lists, by nationality, century, and discipline. If we can do a sortable table, then maybe not, because people would generate them as needed by sorting. The reason , as always, why categories cannot do the job is that the items in categories cannot have annotations. (What we really need for categories, and I am sure it must be codeable, is a way of generating ad hoc intersections. This will eliminate about 90% of the arguments at CfD, and let people do as they please. This would meet some of the need--but only some, because it still couldn't handle the items such as name of invention and dates--essential for browsing, which is one of the key uses of an encyclopedia. )

The way I approach a work of reference, is to figure out as many ways of making lists from it as possible. In fact, that's what I do for other things in life also. (I use Excel, fwiw,--an extremely flexible program.) People's mental predispositions vary. Since we are not paper, we can meet them all.

the main thing that this page needs immediately to show its utility, is the addition of all the other relevant lists. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

aussie scientists

Where are the Australian scientists? Kids are proberly sent out on a task to find Australian scientists and are proberly saying to all their friends to go on Wikipedia!But you know what they'll find, nothing!!!!!