Template talk:Cybernetics

Older comments

maybe we should divide the list of cyberneticisn into an A-list, B-list and C-list? Right now there are too many cyberneticians to manually go through for new people. Maybe we can make a separate page of prominent cyberneticians? Or maybe just list the A-list cyberneticians on this page and list the rest of the "cybernetics" page? A new solution is needed because the list is getting too long and unwieldy. --Ben Houston 14:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subfields

I've removed Ergodic theory from the template about subfields of cybernetics. Cyberneticians may be interested in ergodic theory, but there's no way ergodic theorists think of themselves as cyberneticians. Game theory is pretty questionable too; I think I'll strip it from the template as well.

It would be OK to put another row in the template called "Related interests" or something, and then perhaps a reasonable case could be made for adding those subjects there. I don't know enough about cybernetics to know whether that's reasonable or not. But please avoid the temptation to overreach and claim that everything under the Sun is cybernetics. --Trovatore 20:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding a related subjects field to the template.--Scorpion451 17:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the cite

for the K-1, K-2, K-3 categorization? patsw 03:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The k-1,k-2,k-3 categoization is borrowed from game theory, not sure it has a place here--Scorpion451 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cyberneticists

I cannot see the need for the list of cyberneticians in this template, which overlaps with the Category:Cyberneticists. And if this is supposed to be a selected list of prominent cyberneticians, then that introduces a certain amount of POV. --RichardVeryard 09:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]