Talk:Long-term experiment

References

I count three journal citations in the text as well as links that may lead to other citations. So it's not accurate to say it has NO citations. Is 3 citations fewer than average for an article this long? Do they need to be in another format (cited at end rather than in text, say)? 134.84.10.225 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Ford[reply]

i moved the 3 refs to a reference section. unfortunately, the whole article has to be rewritten in my opinion. i will attempt to tag it so it gets some attention. if i edit it it will mostly disappear. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i tagged it. this was originally an article on long term agricultural experimentation, and is now a mish mosh. i could see it going in many directions: a dynamic list of long term experiments (how long is long?), reversion to agricultural experiments, an article on the subject of long term experimentation (methods, difficulty, history, etc). it could be merged with experiment, and likely needs to be moved (renamed). i dont think it needs to be deleted, even though as it stands its not really an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two examples in Physics section don't meet the specified requirements

This article specifies requirements for inclusion in the title category: . '...Long-term experiments therefore contrast with nonexperimental long-term studies in which manipulation of the system studied is impossible or undesirable...' . By that standard, two examples provided in the section labeled 'Physics' are not 'long-term experiments' but instead 'long-term studies'; namely the pitch drop (measurement/observation/study) and solar microwave observatory. It is not desirable to manipulate the former and not possible to manipulate the later. . Perhaps these should be removed. . 70.171.44.124 (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)BGriffin[reply]

I personally would be in favor of including long-term observational studies and even possibly adding more, though they perhaps could be in a different section to maintain an distinction between controlled experiments and observational studies. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I propose that Longitudinal study be merged into Long-term experiment. Afaict, the two terms are synonymous and should be redirects of each other. Currently, the articles cover the same ground, although about 80% of the former is a list in the form of a table.

If the two are not merged, then LS should be renamed according to the lists guideline, something like List of long-term experiments, and the lead shortened. Mathglot (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications:

LS Top 10 and creator: @Verne Equinox, SLS-DSU, Mild Bill Hiccup, Drnjshelton, 194.32.31.1, H of holder, and LutzPrechelt:

LTE Top 10+: @Ford Denison, 86.167.244.185, Jimw338, 130.195.253.52, 129.215.75.201, Maury Markowitz, and Mercurywoodrose:

WT:ANTHRO

Mathglot (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. An LS follows a bunch of people, often a cohort, as they get older, and records what happens to them. It's typically medical. It's often observational not experimental, though experiments are possible. An LTE is, as the E says, an experiment in which there are intervention groups and controls. Famous ones such as the Park Grass Experiment are in agriculture; they're used in microbiology too, over many generations of bugs: the human equivalent would not be an LS during folk's lives, but an intergenerational study for many centuries (guess that ancient DNA studies do that retrospectively, to some extent). There are some overlaps here, and some areas which are distinct. They should stay separate. The LS list should be split off as a separate list article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While all long-term experiments are longitudinal studies, the reverse is not the case. Important to maintain the distinction, in my opinion. Also, the embedded list of longitudinal studies does not offend me, as part of a longer longitudinal study article; that is not unusual in Wikipedia, especially for 'start'-class articles. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per DASonnenfeld rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as per everyone else. Bondegezou (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit suggestion to add evolutionary long-term study of bird (lizard, etc.) populations

Since it is up to interpretation what is "long-term", I was thinking that some "natural experiments", meaning one that include following up some naturally evolving populations could be thought as "long-term" experiments.

Therefore, I propose to add to the "evolutionary biology" or the "ecology" section, one that talks about "natural" experiments like Peter and Rosemary Grant's study on the Galápagos Islands.

References:

Grant, P. R., and B. R. Grant. 2014. 40 years of evolution. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
Grant, P. R., and B. R. Grant. 2002. Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin's finches. Science 296:707–711.

References from Wikipedia:

More over, other field studies have been contributing to our knowledge of evolution when looking at natural populations of anoles lizards.

Reference:

https://www.nature.com/articles/387070a0

Long term studies of bighorn sheep and mountain goats are another good example of "natural" experiments.

Reference:

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2656.13002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beausoleilmo (talk • contribs) 18:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]