Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Game theory/Archive 3

Collaboration
Aloha - Happy new year to everyone. Some time ago, User:Trialsanderrors suggested a collaboration of the week sort of thing. I think this would be a good idea, although given the time I have to dedicate, perhaps a collaboration of the month or collaboration of the fortnight might be better. If anyone thinks this might be a good idea, I'll set it up. Probably we'll just make a list of pages and rotate the list every month/fortnight. Sound cool? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's start with Chicken (game), Discoordination game, and Peace war game which should've been my Christmas project. Maybe we can even awake Pete.Hurd from his turkey coma... ~ trialsanderrors 07:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm, ugggghhhh, whaaa, ... parental leave, tofu and beer coma... I'm half-awake now... Chicken/Hawk-Dove/Discoordination/Peace-war, good choice... Pete.Hurd 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So... Chicken/Hawk-Dove/Discoordination, one article, or three? Pete.Hurd 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say two or three. The argument that Chicken has a "popular history" that shouldn't go into the discoord article makes sense. I'm thinking the same about Hawk-Dove but you know probably more about the background on that one. Discoord should merely cover the game-theoretic aspects (and commonalities) of the games, since it's not really as strongly established in game theory or popular perception. ~ trialsanderrors 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm down. I vote for the following:  Chicken (game) makes reference to the popular history and some duplication of game theory material at discoordination game.  DG contains stuff about Hawk-Dove, and peace war game become a redirect to DG.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * peace war game become a redirect to DG &larr; You mean PD, I assume? ~ trialsanderrors 02:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess that would make more sense, since the game is actually a PD. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My redirect was reverted by an anonymous editor and complained to me about it on my talk page. I guess this isn't closed yet. ~ trialsanderrors 20:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Shesh... I think the conversation is occurring at Talk:Peace war game. Let's keep it there.  I suspect the three of us (trials, pete, and myself) are in agreement, unless convinced otherwise.  So for the time being, I think consensus is clearly to keep it as a redirect and the onus is on Mbhiii to convince us otherwise.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay we're up and running with a collaboration for the month, including spiffy new blue box. Who can resist contributing now? Add whatever you like to the list for future collaborations. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmmmmmm, blue boxes... ~ trialsanderrors 02:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

risk dominance
I havn't been working here much recently, and I see that the average game theory article looks a lot better than it did even a few months ago. I just made a start on an article for risk dominance, but it isn't too pretty (nor is it too comprehensible, I think). Plus, it might not even be very correct. So I'm wondering (hoping?) that someone can come look at it and make any quick/easy fixes. Also, I couldn't find an extension of the concept to large games, and the article also needs a discussion of its application to evolutionary games (both things that I will try to do later, but I thought I'd mention here in case someone else was looking for something to do). Thanks, Smmurphy(Talk) 19:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed the redlink too. I'd actually say we can merge Payoff dominant equilibrium into risk dominance. ~ trialsanderrors 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Payoff dominance is basically the same as Pareto dominant (and payoff dominance doesn't seem that common in the literature), so the merger would maybe be in that direction if at all.


 * The thing is, there isn't much work on putting together a coherent WP picture of equilibrium selection as of yet. Is anyone doing this?  I've created an article at equilibrium selection, but I haven't seen the Harsyani and Selton paper, hopefully someone will have a chance to give the page (and risk dominance) a lookover.  Smmurphy(Talk) 07:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Payoff dominance is a comparison of equilibria only, so it's the other side of the coin of risk dominance in stag hunt games. Those two things can be explained in conjunction, and risk dominance is probably the more distinctive term. I'll have a look at the article now. ~ trialsanderrors 08:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see what you meant. Umm, I guess I'm not sure.  I'll be up at the library today, so I'll be able to look at the Harsany and Selton book (it isn't checked out, yes!), and depending on what I learn, I'll try to build a skeleton of articles on equilibrium selection topics...  Smmurphy(Talk) 16:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Back to equilibrium selection, is there a concrete difference between equilibrium selection and equilibrium refinement? Cretog8 (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

CotM
Hello all - I have updated the collaboration of the month for February. I think the January collaboration went well. I know the article still needs some work, but I think the article(s) are much improved. However, we now have no new articles for the months to come. Please add any article that you think needs some TLC to the list. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm good with risk/payoff dominance. Thanks K for your efforts on the Chicken article. ~ trialsanderrors 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, thanks to you as well! Would you rather do these two this month instead of Nash equilibrium? I can easily switch it. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What's your take on the current quality of the NE article? I only scanned it, but looks like a B level article to me, so risk/payoff, which needs to be created from the ground up, might have higher urgency. ~ trialsanderrors 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work on the last CoTM Kevin. I'm too fried to help with anything requiring thinking this month. So I have no opinion on the next CoTM choice. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 05:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Risk dominance it is. I think NE should garner our attention soon, because its such a prominent part of GT.  (And I agree its a B article at best, despite its GA ranking.)  We'll save NE for when your not so fried Pete :)  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, let's head over to Talk:Risk dominance for topical discussion then, and Pete will hopefully let us know when he reaches an unfried equilibrium state. ~ trialsanderrors 21:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, ask and you shall recieve, eh. See you guys over there (and thanks). Smmurphy(Talk) 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I also wrote a quick stub on Stochastically stable equilibrium. ~ trialsanderrors 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we done with risk dominance? If so we should wrap it up by deciding whether we need two articles, and what the name of the article/s should be ("dominance" or "dominant equilibrium"). ~ trialsanderrors 01:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I had wanted to add stuff, but this month has been really crazy. I could put it back as the CotM for March, put it back on the list for a future month, or leave it off.  What do you think?  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's ok to wrap it up. Maybe if I re-read Ellison/Young/etc. in the near future I can add some more formal stuff. Improving Nash equilibrium seems the more pressing need now. ~ trialsanderrors 05:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Evolutionary game theory
I created this category and replaced some uses of Category:Evolutionary dynamics with it. Feel free to revert if there is a meaningful difference between the two. ~ trialsanderrors 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Game-theory-stub
Anyone got a good image for this? I'm still using the one from econ-stub. Nothing in game tree or extensive form game looks usable. ~ trialsanderrors 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I switched it to the game tree used on Ultimatum game. What do you think? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's better. We need someone who can convert png's into svg's though. ~ trialsanderrors 20:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, people on commons keep giving my shit about that. I generate my game trees using a LaTeX package, and I have no idea how to do dvi -> svg or ps/eps -> svg conversion.  (Inkscape wont' do it, or at least, I can't figure out how to do it with Inkscape.)  If anybody knows how, let me know and I can easily regenerate all of these game trees as svgs. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea, and game trees would be the only use I might have for that knowledge. I have an old version of Adobe Illustrator (uninstalled), although from my experience with Photoshop and creating png files, I'm inclined to think it probably won't create useful results. ~ trialsanderrors 20:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can do eps to svg with "pstoedit -f plot-svg infile.eps outfile.svg", in the pstoedit package on Ubuntu or Fedora. Pete.Hurd 03:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sweet! Thanks, Pete.  I'll make these SVGs soon.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

vNM utility
hey, there seems to be two pages-one topic: Neumann-Morgenstern utility and Expected utility hypothesis, with a mention at Utility. What do you think? I've put in a mergeto/from in the direction of Expected utility hypothesis... Smmurphy(Talk) 04:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

division game
I noticed that there wasn't an article for division game. I created a stub, but I'm guessing that it already exists elsewhere, right? Its too late for me to try to guess what other names the game might have. Also, is it major enough to get a spot in the GT template? I see it as the "brother" of the ultimatum game, and equally fundamental. Smmurphy(Talk) 05:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know this game by the name Nash bargaining game and there is some stuff about it already. But you're right it's not in the template.  Given its prominent use by my advisor (and to a lesser extent me), I think it ought to be in.  I'll leave it to someone else to decide however.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, I just made some edits to that last week. Division game is an rd, now.  I think I'll sneak it into the template, too, and leave someone else to decided if it shouldn't. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I put it in the template.Pete.Hurd 06:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it called the division game often enough to have the alt name mentioned? Smmurphy(Talk) 06:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard that name before, but if you've heard it, it might as well be mentioned. It can't hurt. (P.S. WPGT is running like a well oiled machine tonight.)  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Game theory sort
This was mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics:
 * I've created categories that match the main ones in JEL classification codes, namely Category:Cooperative game, Category:Non-cooperative games,Category:Evolutionary game theory and Category:Bargaining theory. It would be great if someone could take an hour or two to categorize the large number of articles currently under Category:Game theory into these subcategories. PS, I don't know how to get a line break after the userbox. Help appreciated!JQ 06:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a couple letters (T-Z)... Smmurphy(Talk) 20:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this JQ 20:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Whups, I just reverted Smmurphy's recat of Unbeatable strategy from "Evolutionary game theory" back to "Game theory". I don't think it belongs in EGT, since it makes no references to dynamics at all.  If it has to be in one of those JEL subcategories (and does it?), then it belongs in Noncooperative. Pete.Hurd 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I saw ESS and recategorized unbeatable strategy without thinking much about it. Thanks for the oversight. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did a few letters, then I realized that I wasn't always sure, so I stopped. It seems that a lot of these are general enough that they are used papers categorized as each of these.  I guess there are a few that are obviously one or another (Shapeley value or something), but...  On the other hand, I was at first happy with the idea of subcategories.  What does everyone think? Smmurphy(Talk) 21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not surprisingly, I'm in favour. Category:Game theory already has 150 articles, which is comparable to typical members of Category:Categories requiring diffusion, and there is obviously room for plenty of growth here. While the JEL subcategories aren't perfect in every case, they are as good a classification scheme as you are likely to get.JQ 22:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not *opposed* to recategorizing, especially those that are obvious, but JEL's economics-flavoured categories may not work well on those aspects of game theory that are primarily from other disciplines. Virtually all biological game theory is noncooperative, yet the term "noncooperative game theory" would set most biologists scratching their heads, when they wouldn't bat an eye at "game theory". Cheers, Pete.Hurd 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We can use multiple categorization schemes I think. For example, if we had a biological game theory category, articles in this category could also be classified as non-cooperative, evolutionary and so on. As an economist, my immediate, and not perfectly well-informed thought is that most biological game theory would naturally fit under "evolutionary" (since backward induction, common knowledge of rationality and so on don't seem to apply), but the discussion above suggests this thought may be wrong.
 * Exactly, there is very little evolutionary game theory in biology. JEL has EGT lumped correctly as "Stochastic and Dynamic games; Evolutionary games" and virtually all game theory in biology ignores explicit dynamics. Evolutionary stable strategies sort of imply a dynamic, but it's only implied.  I'd say a safe heuristic would be to put all the biological models into noncooperative.  If we re-cat all the out-and-out econ and leave the biological as "cat:game theory" are there really far too many left?  I have a very poor feeling for the magnitude of the problem to be solved.  If it's still bad, then I suppose put the biological into noncooperative, the cost to readers will work out to be very small, and they might even learn something trying to figure out WTF noncooperative game theory is. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 23:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (starting indents again). I've created Category:Biological game theory. If appropriate, relevant articles could be placed in this category and also categorized as non-cooperative, evolutionary and so on. Taking this more generally, we could use field of application as a categorization scheme, including economics, political science and so on - this would be essentially orthogonal to the JEL classification scheme.JQ 14:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If I can add my 2 cents. I would like to avoid exclusive categorization in a discipline specific category.  I don't object to having Biological GT, Econ GT, etc.  But I would not like any article to have it's only category be Bio GT, unless there is a very good reason for it.  Given how very interdisciplinary GT is, even if something is primarily used in biology, putting it in such a category seems to imply it's only used there which is in almost all cases not true.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, I don't see any problem in having multiple categorization schemes, different for each discipline. Ideally the biological game theory could be the top category for a classification reflecting the needs of biologists, while the same article would appear classifed as non-cooperative, co-operative etc in the scheme derived from economics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs) 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

CotM April
I'm going to leave NE for the Collaboration for April. I really haven't had a chance to edit it, and it doesn't look like others have really either. I don't know if I'll have more time in April than I did in March but perhaps others will. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah . I'll still try to squeeze an article on Strategic move in, and if only to jump start the May CotM. ~ trialsanderrors 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiBook
Anybody else noticed Introduction to Game Theory? Not that I have any extra time lying around to work on this project, but since WikiBooks is also a GFDL project, we might be able to steal (I mean use) some material if we find it useful. Perhaps others might be interested too... --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * looks like the flow of material will be in the other direction for a while... Pete.Hurd 22:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Outcome (game theory)
I stumbled upon the article outcome (game theory), which is a rather pathetic stub. Don't we already have an article on this somewhere that this could redirect to? Smmurphy(Talk) 21:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, my first reaction was redirect to payoff, so I clicked on the link in the outcome article... disappointing. Maybe the solution is to expand the stub into an article to cover them both? Pete.Hurd 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which title do you think? Smmurphy(Talk) 22:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If I had to pick one, I'd go with "outcome" over "payoff". It's hard to believe we havn't got something written that I'm overlooking. Maybe Kevin knows of whatever it is we've overlooked. Pete.Hurd 04:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We maybe don't have an article on this. I think I've just referenced utility occasionally, maybe.  When I get back in town on sunday I'll cheque, er check, around.  :) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI in cooperative game theory outcome is a payoff-configuration/partition pair.Koczy 14:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow's impossibility theorem edits
Some of you might have noticed recent edits made to Arrow's impossibility theorem by User:Dr. I .D. A. MacIntyre. The edits were out of place and poorly formatted, and have been moved to the talk page to be integrated later, I guess. Anyway, Dr. MacIntyre has stated on their user page that he wishes to create a page that resolves what he calls "Arrow's paradox" (well, he says a few things, you can read it yourself). I don't know if any of you are very familiar with his work - I'm not - (assuming this is the Dr. MacIntyre), but his contributions to game theory is largely along these lines. Umm, I guess I'm bringing this to your attention because the user could probably use our help in this project (naming said article, formatting, casting references, support if things become frustrating, etc). Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 02:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, nicely put in your post to his talk page about the potential for WP:OR concerns. Yeah, an article resolving Arrow's paradox would be great, especially if it avoids WP:SYN.  A more difficult problem may be documenting notable WP:SCIENCE impact and avoiding WP:NPOV.  The Synthese paper has not been cited, and of the four Theory and Decision papers only one has been cited by anyone other than MacIntyre (the 1998 paper, which was cited twice by L Lauwers). That's according to the ISI Web of Knowledge, a more appropriate citation index may exist for this topic, it's a bit out of my area. Pete.Hurd 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't had a chance to look at the specific situation yet. WRT citation, I don't know if there is a good citation index for philosophy.  It's not a statistic often used.  Synthese is a good journal, however.  Theory and decision is good, but probably not as well respected as Synthese.  I'm hurrying about to leave town tomorrow.  I get back on Sunday, I'll try to remember to take a little more detailed look.  If I forget drop me a note on my talk page.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

May?
Okay, the two months Nash equilibrium have been largely a bust (*bows head in shame*). Why don't we rotate to another article and put NE back on the list and work on it later? I put common knowledge (logic) on the list, because I'm taking a class on it right now. But I'll work on that myself either way, would folks prefer strategic move or perhaps outcome (game theory)? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree on moving NE back, I still can't decide whether to try and fix the current article or start over from scratch. I've written three words on Strategic move so far (in userspace since it's certainly not ready to post in article space), but if no one else feels like contributing I can finish it as a stub and leave it at that. Outcome might be a better article to cooperate on, although I'd rather extend Payoff and link outcome there. ~ trialsanderrors 07:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Although may is almost over, lets do payoff for may. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where to start. Umm, so I got bold.  Who knows if it is any good.  Also, in order to remove a red link, I'm writing a stub for implementation theory.  Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 05:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't think May is going so well either. Tough month, I guess.  I don't know what's next for the Outcome (game theory) article, no one has changed it much since I edited it two weeks ago.  I'm thinking that either it should be located at Payoff (game theory), or payoff should point to it.  Any opinions on which title is better?  My preference is actually payoff when it comes to game theory. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been busy. I had given this a little thought, and I think the best thing might be to have an article Game (game theory) which included a discussion of strategy (game theory), outcome (game theory), normal form game, and extensive form game.  I had meant to suggest it, but forgot.  What do people think of this idea?  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea, should also include Move (game theory) I think. Pete.Hurd 20:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies!
I'm sure regulars here have already noticed that I have been questioning the good article status of several Game Theory articles. I came to this because the most obvious weak GAs within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics are Best response and Nash equilibrium, and I think there is some agreement here that the latter is not currently GA standard. I have noticed (and others have too) a tendency in Game Theory articles to assume that the reader has read other articles, such as Prisoners dilemma and Stag hunt, and so understands the jargon of game theory. This really needs to be fixed, in my opinion, since most game theory articles could be much more accessible than they currently are.

I realise I may not be making myself very popular by saying this, but this project has been rather quiet recently, so I hope I might provide some incentive to reinvigorate it. Geometry guy 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not particlarly re-invigorated. I'd like to have time to improve these articles (they definitely could be better) but I don't. Pete.Hurd 22:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What Pete said. But maybe some of the numerous editors who sign up to the WPGT and then disappear are willing to pick up the baton. ~ trialsanderrors 23:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree and disagree. I agree that Nash equilibrium is far from good.  I've been meaning to improve it, but it's a very large task.  I think Best response is good, however.  I have never thought the "uninitiated reader" standard is an appropriate standard for all articles, but that rather each article should be judged by its expected audience.  Best response isn't an entry point to game theory for anyone.  Instead articles like Prisoner's dilemma, Nash equilibrium, and Game theory are.  Articles like Best response are second tier articles, readers come to them with some knowledge wanting to learn more about game theory.  If we were to write every article with an uninitiated reader in mind, articles like Fictitious play or MAPNASH would be absurdly long and would be less useful for the average reader of those articles.  I think best response meets this standard. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I've had a chance to look over your criticisms, I must object to your method. First, objecting to all of the articles so quickly almost guarantees that we won't be able to address all of your concerns.  Why didn't you bring these up over the period of a week or two?  It would have been easier on everyone.  Second, your comments at Talk:Chicken (game) are extremely vague, probably because you listed so many in quick succession that you didn't feel like typing out your reasoning.  Your constant deference to GA Review suggests to me that you are more interested in getting the articles delisted than having them improved.  If you have complaints about the articles, why not be more specific?  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Chicken (game) is the one which I am least sure about, which is why I have listed it at good article review for wider opinion. (I did this one first by the way.) For the others, I only mention GA/R to draw attention to the opportunity to contest my assessment. I thought about listing them all there, but decided to take responsibility (and the flak) myself. For three of them, it is not clear that they should have been listed (the reviews are superficial or non-existent). As for Nash equilibrium, why did no one here delist it in February? If it is agreed that an article is not GA, it should not be listed as GA. GA isn't a competition, it is a benchmark. I'm not complaining, I am assessing. You have all the time in the world to improve articles, but they should not be listed as GA before they meet the criteria. Geometry guy 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't delist Nash Equilibrium because I don't feel I understand the GA criteria. If someone else thought it met the criteria, I would leave it alone.  GA criteria have changed a lot since it was invented, and I've never really been involved in the process. I don't think the article is a very good article (based on Kevin's criteria), so I wouldn't have requested it be a GA myself.  Any way, I'm hardly obligated to do anything here... Ultimatum game became a GA a long time ago, the standards may have changed since then, and I'm willing to believe that while it once met the standards it does not now.  (When it was reviewed, I don't think it was required that the reviewer give any comments.)  Since I don't know the standards, I can't really argue with your assessments, but your complaints sound very much like complaints I hear at WP:FAR, so I wonder if you maybe have an overly strict interpretation of the criteria.  But what do I know?
 * I've just taken a look at some of the  Category:GA-Class_physics_articles  and  Category:FA-Class_physics_articles  articles in the wikiproject physics, to have some sense of how the inaccessiblity, and stand-alone ability of the game theory Gas compares to those in another field. The lead section of Hilbert space, Plasma (physics), Schrödinger equation, Entropy, Cosmic inflation and Casimir effect (to take a few representative examples) seem just as, if not more, jargon-filled, and assuming of knowedge of other articles as any of the game theory articles.  Geometrically frustrated magnet looks far worse than any of the game theory GAs (not that that article is representative of the physics GAs). Electron beam physical vapor deposition's lead looks to my eyes to be of the same overall quality as Best response.  I don't see that the physics FAs (eg: Equipartition theorem, Atomic line filter, Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector) are any more approachable by laypeople than the game theory GAs.  That said, in general, the maths GAs are far better articles than the GAs in game theory, biology, or physics... Pete.Hurd 19:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

August
I have put up Evolutionarily stable strategy for collaboration of the month (August). It was once a WP:GA (see above) and should not be hard to get it up to par. I probably won't be able to contribute too much until mid August, but perhaps others would like to. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, good choice. I ought to be able to put some effort into this, but not until the second week. Pete.Hurd 04:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone have time to look at the lead? I'm going to scratch away at later sections now. Pete.Hurd 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a look tonight or tomorrow... sorry, I've been sick (and busy). --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

gt template on redirect pages
I've been removing the gametheory project template from the talk pages of redirects. It's just crossed my mind that maybe I should just leave them there. Thoughts? Questions? Comments? Pete.Hurd 03:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)