Talk:Theory of genetic algorithms

Redirect[edit]

I redirected this recently-created article because the only content appears to be copy-and-paste from the Genetic algorithm article, along with self-promotional material that was recently removed. I see no reason for this article to exist in its current state.

Please don't create fork articles unless there's something new to put in them. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 14:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant amount of theory about genetic algorithms that will not fit in the genetic algorithms article. This article gives room to expand on that body of work. pgr94 (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to do so unless there is something to put here right now. If you don't have anything extra to add to this article, I will revert back to a redirect for now. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 14:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The theory of genetic algorithms is a significant area:

Google scholar: "genetic algorithms" theory: ~164,000 article [1]
Google scholar: "building block hypothesis": 1,650 articles [2]

Your edits are unhelpful, please get consensus before deleting work. pgr94 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to create this article unless the existing section at Genetic algorithm becomes bloated. If you feel there's more to say on the theory, then add it to that article, and a spin-off/fork will be created as necessary.

Please don't throw around accusations of "disruptive editing" or implications of ducking consensus. Nothing has been deleted here, because the only content is copy-and-paste from an existing article. There was no consensus or need to create this fork article in the first place. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 14:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a dick. I was going to bring together work about Holland's Schema theorem, Michael Vose's SGA, etc. pgr94 (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only person being "a dick" is you! I redirected what appeared to be a copy-and-paste content fork (I wasn't the only one though this, see my talk page), which is an entirely reasonable action. You're now acting like a spoilt child and throwing accusations around. If there's material to write, then please do so, don't leave an article laying around in a pointless form for three hours. And I'd suggest not to continue with your current tone of incivility. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 15:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"theory of genetic algorithms is a significant area" - right, and I would expect to find it on genetic algorithm. ErikHaugen (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"will not fit" - Genetic algorithm really isn't all that big, and I think this is or could be a very central part of that article, so I don't think the splitting here is useful or necessary. In any case, there is nothing here that isn't on genetic algorithm, this page in its current form is just a verbatim fork. There is nothing disruptive about removing duplicated text. Pgr94 - are you planning on adding these additional sections within the next few hours? If not, let's redirect, at least for now. ErikHaugen (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 16:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]