Talk:Network science

Merger proposal

I propose to merge the Network_Science page into Network_theory. There is significant overlap between the two pages. I think the Network Theory page is in better shape. Joelmiller (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but would prefer to move Network_theory into Network_Science. Network_Science is a lot more comprehensive than the Network_theory page and covers a lot of the essential basics. I also think a full clean up of the two pages would be warranted. --Fractalfalcon (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of the SIR model

The SIR model is currently the Kermack McKendrick model, which basically describes what disease modelling was like before network science existed. The section should probably be completely revamped to include network effects: e.g., the impact of large degree variance, more accurate models of disease. I don't have time to do this right now, but would encourage others to have a go at it. Joelmiller (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Link to the Cyberinfrastructure within the article

Hi,

you're right ! I added this link because this university was the first to explicitly open their tools (http://cns.slis.indiana.edu/software/) and data, and some great people have participated like A.L. Barabasi and A.Vespignani.

K. Börner took an important part of NetSci I think : Börner, Katy, Sanyal, Soma & Vespignani, Alessandro. (2007). Network Science. In Cronin, Blaise (Eds.), Annual Review of Information Science & Technology (Vol. 41, pp. 537-607), chapter 12, Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc./American Society for Information Science and Technology.

Regards,

--Mentatseb (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Broken External link

http://www.netscience.usma.edu/NSW/Papers/Network_Science_Report_Vol1No1.pdf not sure what to do here, link checker thinks it is ok , however i cannot view the page or pdf on my browser... jolt76 (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Network related merging

There is a discussion about merging and spinning out network-related articles including this one at Talk:Social network#General network domain cleanup. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Misleading links in lead

A couple of thinks in the intro don't lead me where I would expect: engineered networks, information networks. I would fix but I am not sure what is intended here and I don't have access to the reference used for the paragraph to track it down. --Kvng (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "network" needed

The lede currently tells us that network science is the study of networks, but it doesn't say what a network is. I think the definition should be here so the reader doesn't have to go clicking around looking for it. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There are many Wikilinks to articles that clearly describe what kinds of networks we're talking about: complex networks such as telecommunication networks, computer networks, biological networks, cognitive and semantic networks, and social networks. -—Kvng 04:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong reference

In the section on density there is a reference to Wasserman & Faust 1994 (This is reference nr2). The link that is provided sends you to a totally different article --> http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-03201-003
What i think that's actually being referenced is this book --> https://books.google.be/books/about/Social_Network_Analysis.html?id=CAm2DpIqRUIC&redir_esc=y

I've never edited a wiki page and i don't have a proper link to the book itself so i thought it would be better to mention it here then to try and change it myself.

Hope this helps :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by De gussem martijn (talk • contribs) 15:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Network science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150824235818/http://www3.nd.edu/~networks/Publication%20Categories/03%20Journal%20Articles/Physics/StatisticalMechanics_Rev%20of%20Modern%20Physics%2074,%2047%20(2002).pdf to http://www.nd.edu/~networks/Publication%20Categories/03%20Journal%20Articles/Physics/StatisticalMechanics_Rev%20of%20Modern%20Physics%2074,%2047%20(2002).pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120417112354/http://www.nd.edu/~networks/Publication%20Categories/03%20Journal%20Articles/Physics/EmergenceRandom_Science%20286,%20509-512%20(1999).pdf to http://www.nd.edu/~networks/Publication%20Categories/03%20Journal%20Articles/Physics/EmergenceRandom_Science%20286,%20509-512%20(1999).pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Strange sentence

However, a number equal to the fraction (...) of infectives are leaving this class per unit time to enter the removed class.

What means the removed class here? Jumpow (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Barabási and separating peerless geniuses from "ordinary" ones

This field is new to me so I don't know where to begin.

Where to put the following tidbit?

Source is Why Einstein is a “peerless genius” and Hawking is an “ordinary genius” by Albert-László Barabási Youtube video. At 2:33 Barabási claims the strongest indicator of a "peerless" genius is, and I quote, "the number of languages to which a person's Wikipedia page has been translated to".

Cheers,

a random Youtube watcher and non-expert Wikipedia editor,

CapnZapp (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)