Jump to content

Talk:List of eponymous laws/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Should this list be

Should this list be split between adages and physical laws? Note for instance that there is already a category for adages. Terry 17:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

my vote: not unless it gets to an unmanageable length. --Tagishsimon
I vote yea. Adages, although often called laws, aren't really laws. The two should be on seperate pages, as they are different conceptually. -- Joshdick 14:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
However, this is not the 'List of eponymous physical laws' it is the 'List of eponymous laws'. That said, I agree with the general drift throughout the talk page that formal/scientific laws should appear here, and adages (even if called "Laws", e.g. Godwin's Law, Murphy's Law, etc., belong on the List of adages named after people. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I vote for split. Adages have their own list, and it seems this lists got quite in length. Biblbroks 19:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is below 32k. I caution that you may not find it as easy as all that to decide whether some laws are adages or not. Not that I know what an adage is. My vote is still against a split for now. I note we are still several laws short, though. I would very much like to preserve a list of all laws - even if that's a skeletal list of article titles. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I've moved this to the talk page because of the discussion on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Mitchell's_Law:

* Mitchell's Law - "You do more things right by accident than you do on purpose". Attributed to Robert F. Mitchell of Erie, Pennsylvania. There is also Mitchell's corollary - "If you're not doing anything right, you're trying too hard"

Daniel's law

Is that legitimate? If it is, then it should be alphabetized and the comment about Linus (Torvalds) should be dropped. If not, then it should be deleted. To me it looks like a youthful vanity prank, but I don't know enough to say that with any certainty and hope that it will noted by someone with sufficient knowledge. Rlquall 01:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Grimm's Law? Gresham's Law?

First one has something to do with consonant shifts as words were imported into Germanic languages from Romance languages & is named for one of the Grimm brothers of fairy tale fame, and the other has to do with bad currency driving out good.

I've added blank entries to the list in the hopes that someone who actually knows what they're talking about might properly define them...

Should this not be in the article?
The article links laws on which there is an article. Is a theorum a law? Loses on one or two counts thus far :( --Tagishsimon (talk)
See De Morgan's Laws 81.98.33.65 11:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Recommend Deletion

I merged this article with Scientific laws named after people, and put the remaining items in Adages named after people, and Observations named after people, as requested by the merging template. I also cleaned up the entries a lot. It should be much more logical now. The new lists also correspond to the formating of the other similar lists located at Eponym.

The above was written by User:Nickpowerz. Michael Hardy 00:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
This article is distinct from Scientific laws named after people as it contains not scientific laws. It is also in a different form - providing a precis of the law. Do not delete it. --Tagishsimon (talk)
If we're going to do a merge, it should be done the other way 'round - the Scientific laws page is more precise, so it should be merged into this one. JYolkowski // talk 12:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and if we've done a merge, we can't delete this page anyway, as we'd lose the history information required by the GFDL. JYolkowski // talk 12:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Both pages currently are happy. I do not think anything further should be done w.r.t. merge. One is a (imo poorly named) article on eponymous scientific laws. This one includes non-scientific. Whoever put the redirect on this page within the last 24 hours did it very hastily and without a consensus, even if they thought they were acting for the best. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I think the proposed merger is incredibly stupid. Why not merge a list of scientific laws with a list of rock-n-roll bands while we're at it? Michael Hardy 00:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

DO NOT merge with adages. adages are not laws. M1ss1ontomars2k4 12:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ralph's law

Removed from the list for lack of a source. Radiant_>|< 16:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing Merge Tags

Since at least fourteen months have passed without consensus on merging the two, I'm deleting the 'In your Face' tags in favor of a see also. FrankB 16:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also removed LISTDEV

Seems fairly well developed. One cannot judge an inponderable, nor measure incompleteness without omnicense, so since the auto-category of {{listdev}}, (Category:Incomplete lists}}), is overfull, I thought I'd give it one less item. FrankB 17:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge discussions (Observations ⇒ Adages)

For those who care about the merge issues and keeping the lists sane, please see the merge discussions (not directly relating to List of eponymous laws over at List of adages named after people and List of observations named after people and weigh in on them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 15:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Edwards' Law

This law is quoted in various places, including sometimes my signature, but at I was not able to (via Google) find it attributed to an actual person or any other orginal source. Does anyone know the source? If no source can be found, we probably should consider what to do to it. It is used, so just deleting it from a list doesn't seem the right thing to do. Flambergius 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To be added

Ashby's law of requisite varietyRobert Daoust 16:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Godel's theoremRobert Daoust 16:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a few missing, that should be imported from this diff of List of adages named after people which was recently redirected to here, without proper merging. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2007