Talk:Tarski's World
Appearance
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Notability
[edit]Is this program notable? The references appear to be entirely by the authors of the work in question. Wikipedia:Notability guidelines call for evidence from reliable independent sources. Deltahedron (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think the issue might be with the style of referencing being used in which the authors were included in the source. This is obviously not appropriate. I'll tidy them up and delete the notability tag and hope that is OK. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC))
- That looks better. It's now clear that the references are four book reviews of a book with which this program is associated. Is this significant coverage of the program itself? Deltahedron (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- The book is the manual for the program and they came as a package when I bought it with the disk stuck in the book. The reviews are about the program and the manual. But I think the program seemed more important as the focus for our article Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC))
- If the book and the computer program are a package, the article needs to say so — I got the impression the article was only about the computer program. Deltahedron (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- The article was about the program as that was the thing I first saw and I think is the most notable thing but it does come with a book and so now I have mentioned this. Hope is ok now (Msrasnw (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC))
- If the book and the computer program are a package, the article needs to say so — I got the impression the article was only about the computer program. Deltahedron (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- The book is the manual for the program and they came as a package when I bought it with the disk stuck in the book. The reviews are about the program and the manual. But I think the program seemed more important as the focus for our article Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC))
- That looks better. It's now clear that the references are four book reviews of a book with which this program is associated. Is this significant coverage of the program itself? Deltahedron (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Categories:
- Stub-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- Stub-Class philosophical literature articles
- Low-importance philosophical literature articles
- Philosophical literature task force articles
- Stub-Class logic articles
- Low-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- Stub-Class Contemporary philosophy articles
- Low-importance Contemporary philosophy articles
- Contemporary philosophy task force articles