User talk:Nclisby

Potts Model
Regarding your edit and comment: ''Deleted reference to Ferrero and Cannas. This is not an authoritative reference and doesn't merit inclusion. It appears that it was inserted by one of the authors.''

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just interested. Why do you say This is not an authoritative reference and doesn't merit inclusion? How does one define "an authoritative reference"? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW: Yes, it does look like it may have been inserted by one of the authors, but that's a different topic of conversation. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair question. The literature on the Potts model is large, with at minimum thousands of articles on the topic. The other references given have a much higher level of importance to the field (at least, Ashkin & Teller, Potts, and Wu - I don't claim to know biological applications, but other article by Graner and Grazier does appear to be widely cited), while the Ferrero and Cannas paper is recent, doesn't appear to be particularly influential (yet, at least), and wouldn't serve as a good introduction as it is quite specialised. If the Ferrero and Cannas paper belongs in the references, so do 3000 other papers. Maybe I should have used a term other than authoritative?

Regarding insertion by the author, I'll add that I find blatant self-promotion distasteful, but I think the argument for deletion stands regardless. Cheers, Nclisby (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding insertion by the author: As I said, "that's a different topic", but I'll add that I share both of your opinions.
 * Yes, it was unfortunate you chose that term, because whether or not it is "authoritative" comes a poor third place to "usefulness to this article" and "usefulness to a reader of this article". i.e. I share your opinion on this, too.
 * Thanks for such a helpful response - most appreviated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)