Talk:Co-occurrence network

Untitled
Sorry, I was not aware of the "too short" clause and saved only the first sentence of the text to get it started. I plan to "show relevance" and link from and to "networks" page.Johnfravolda (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've tagged the article as "under construction" on your behalf to let other readers know that you intend to develop it further. :) Since you're evidently new, I've added a "welcome" message to your talk page that may provide some useful information for you, and I'll drop you a few potentially helpful pointers here. First, you should probably read through the guideline on neologisms, which can help you see how to demonstrate that this is not. :) As that guideline suggests, the best way is by using reliable sources to verify that the term is in widespread use and of encyclopedic significance. That will also help you demonstrate that your article is not original research; as a compendium of previously published information, all Wikipedia articles need sources.


 * Also, though I believe the welcome template says so, I'd like to note that if you need help with any aspect of Wikipedia work, you can head over to the the new contributors' help page or the regular help desk, both of which are routinely manned by volunteers 24 hours a day. You can also invite a volunteer to help out at your own talk page by typing helpme (brackets and all) next to your question. Finally, I'd like to note that there's a link tucked behind all the colored text. You probably already know this, but since you are new I'd rather belabor the obvious than miss the most essential point. :D Please let me know if you'd like to discuss any of this further with me. I'm "watching" this page for the moment in case you reply and can also be reached through my own talk page. Happy editing! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes,good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.152.171.102 (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

sections and see also
I created some sections. I would like other editors to review these for me(double check my work.). If these sections are good, then the tag can probably be removed. Also, is the "see also" the references used for this article or really just a see also section? If it is the source then that section should be labeled references instead of see also. R00m c (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and removed the sections tag. R00m c (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)