Talk:List of multiple discoveries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Use the history chapters in the book "Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and its Applications" by Li & Vitanyi for this check

--- Martin Hühne 16:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Done --- Martin Hühne 15:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If the discovery of Greenland is listed shouldn't the independent discoveries of America and Australia be listed too? IMO it would be better to delete the discovery of Greenland, it doesn't seem very "scientific". Smartse (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would go along with that. Nihil novi (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not traditionally scientific, but it is informational, and you could just broaden the scope of the article to include America and Australia. Rhetth (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Antarctic would go there nicely, being discovered by two different expeditions within three days (and by at least one more within the next several months). For that matter (though somewhat unrelatedly), where's the telephone? --82.179.218.11 (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where sources warrant, please consider making additions. Nihil novi (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move portion to multiple discovery[edit]

There are two articles: multiple discovery and list of multiple discoveries. If we want to have both (which I support), then I think multiple discovery should contain most of the content about what it is (and probably the quote) and list of multiple discoveries should just be a small intro and the list. What do you guys think? Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support at least adding some of the "List of multiple discoveries" descriptive content to "Multiple discovery," if not necessarily removing it from "List of multiple discoveries." Nihil novi (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nihil novi (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There is one problem with having the same content on both pages, different people will contribute to each page, and they may end up diverging from each other or splitting the useful content between two pages. It seems to me that there is a clear divide between an article which talks about what multiple discoveries are and a page which lists examples. For example, List of martial arts has a short one sentence WP:lead and then just lists the types. It links to martial arts for readers who want more information. What do you think. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many list articles do have introductions. The one in "List of multiple discoveries" is short, as it is. I would concentrate, instead, on exapanding the text of "Multiple discovery," and later make what adjustments might be desirable to the "List of multiple discoveries." Nihil novi (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add Higgs (Englert, Brout, Higgs, Guralnik, Hagen, Kibble) Boson?[edit]

The wikipedia discussion of the Higgs Boson mentions the almost simultaneous proposal coming from three independent grops. Add this to the list? AdderUser (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do — it does look legitimate.
Done. Nihil novi (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would Weinberg and Salam also merit an entry?
Nihil novi (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add ribozyme?[edit]

The wikipedia entry on ribozyme discusses the simultaneous discovery by Cech (Colorado) and Altman (Yale) using different approaches. Catalytic RNA was an unexpected finding, something they were not looking for and it required rigorous proof that there was no contaminating protein enzyme. They shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery. Add to Main Article?AdderUser (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I've placed an entry about the discovery of ribozymes. Please make whatever additions or corrections to the entry that you may deem appropriate. Nihil novi (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrocene, Non-planar molecules, graph theory, NMR[edit]

I will try to add more detail later, but just to get the ball rolling:

1. The INCORRECT structure and discovery of ferrocene, q.v. for references, was reported independently by Pauson (ref 4) and Tremaine (ref 5). The CORRECT structure, post-publication, was realized independently by Robert Burns Woodward, by Geoffrey Wilkinson and by Ernst Otto Fischer (see ref 6) and possibly others, including Dunitz and Doering (pre-publication!).

Addendum: Ferrocene is an interesting case. Pauson's and Tremaine's independent work was itself a multiple: they both reacted Cp anion with an iron salt, they both obtained orange crystals and they both published what turned out to be an incorrect (Cp-sigma iron) structure. Immediately upon publication (Pauson's paper came out first), many chemists realized that the sigma-bound structure was probably incorrect and that the pi-bonded complex was more likely. Woodward, Wilkinson and Fischer were in academic positions and able to pursue that insight which opened up a whole new field of chemistry research on metallocenes. They each pursued different lines of research and they each won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work. Ferrocene is a multiple-multiple!

2. The synthesis of the first topologically non-planar molecule was reported in back-to-back papers: SYNTHESIS OF THE 1ST TOPOLOGICALLY NON-PLANAR MOLECULE, SIMMONS HE; MAGGIO JE, TETRAHEDRON LETTERS, 1981, 22(4), 287-290 and THREEFOLD TRANS-ANNULAR EPOXIDE CYCLIZATION - SYNTHESIS OF A HETEROCYCLIC C17-HEXAQUINANE, PAQUETTE LA; VAZEUX M, TETRAHEDRON LETTERS, 1981, 22(4), 291-294.

3. Graph Theory was developed or discovered independently by Euler and Cayley to find solutions to completely different problems (Euler: mapping and Cayley: the enumeration of isomeric chemical structures), although a century apart.

4. NMR of liquids and solids: Working independently, Bloch (with water) and Purcell (with paraffin) were trying to extend Rabi's earlier work on NMR. However, no one knew quite exactly where to look in the RF for the resonance signals. Somehow, each group figured it out within a couple of weeks of each other and the rest is history.

Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are very experimental discoveries. 3 is math / theory. 2 might be a little too specialized although it ties in with 3. Please also see the Multiple discovery talk page. AdderUser (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will add these items to the list, with appropriate references where feasible. Nihil novi (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert into sortable lists?[edit]

I think this page would be more useful and informative if it were converted into a set of sortable lists. Perhaps one such list for each century? To give an idea what this would look like, I've set up a sample list, using the all the independent discoveries listed (so far) for the 19th Century.

The sortable list is in my sandbox. Please click on the link, check out the sortable list and indicate here whether you think this might be a good idea.

John Barleycorn's Revenge (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, the table looks lucid and well organized. But is it always possible to state unequivocally which was the first, second, third or later discoverer?
What do you mean by "sortable list"? Nihil novi (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RESPONSE TO NIHIL NOVI'S TWO QUESTIONS:
1. A sortable list is one where you can sort the list according to a number of criteria. There are numerous examples on Wikipedia. For example, here's a sortable list of works by Michelangelo.
2. Regarding the question of priority (who was first, second, etc.): Sometimes the evidence is not clear. Other times (as, for example, with the development of the theory of evolution by Darwin & Wallace), there is a detailed and quite exact record. John Barleycorn's Revenge (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the clarity and succinctness of your tabular model are major recommendations, and that the "Details of discovery or invention" column could accommodate needed clarifications.
I gather that each century would have its own page, and that a home page would list the constituent pages, as with "Lists of atheists"? Nihil novi (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Multiple Discovery of Phosphocreatine[edit]

Quoted directly from the Wikipedia page on phosphocreatine: "The discovery of phosphocreatine was reported by Grace and Philip Eggleton of the University of Cambridge and separately by Cyrus Fiske and Yellapragada Subbarow of the Harvard Medical School in 1927."

I think that could be added to the main page. (If so, copy the references from the phosphocreatine entry, also.)AdderUser (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds legitimate. Would you like to try your hand, entering this in the list? Thanks! Nihil novi (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Independent Discovery of Statin, Mevastatin or HMG-CoA Reductase inhibitors[edit]

For brevity, see Mevastatin. Quoting from Talk on Statins:

Akira Endo published the structure of ML-236B in 1976 but a British group published the exact same compound from another source, named it "compactin" and also published it in 1976. The British group mentions anti-fungal properties with no mention of HMG-CoA Reductase inhibition. See: "Crystal and Molecular Structure of Compactin, a New Antifungal Metabolite from Penicillium brevicompactum." Alian G. Brown, Terry C. Smale, Trevor J. King, Rainer Hasenkamp and Ronald H. Thompson. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1, 1976, 1165-1170. DOI: 10.1039/P19760001165

I think this qualifies as a mulltiple but would need a little editing for inclusion on the main page. AdderUser (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds legitimate. Try your hand? Nihil novi (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simultaneous Invention of Integrated Circuits?[edit]

Why aren't Jack Kilby's and Robert Noyce's simultaneous discovery/invention of integrated circuits mentioned on this page? Seems like a pretty big deal to me. Perhaps that's an "invention" though and not a scientific "discovery"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.135.96 (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I am actually very surprised that the overwhelming list of images on this page has not been addressed on the talk page. I thought for sure someone would have commented on it. Looks like I'll be the first. I don't think it is visually appealing to have all the images on this page. The images far surpass even the reference list. We need to remove a substantial amount of them. I don't want to be the one responsible for deciding which images to keep and which to remove. However, if nobody comes forth to remove the images or doesn't care if I do then I will move forward in this process. Let me know if you disagree, I would be more than happy to talk about it. Let me hear your thoughts. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of having any images on this page. It creates a situation where one of the discoverers of a particular thing may get a picture, but the other not. If one is famous and the other not, that compounds the unfairness. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nihil novi[edit]

User: Nihil novi, instead of engaging in an edit war, discuss the matters here.--Libesruinssineced (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Present the sources for your additions to the article. Nihil novi (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Did you add any sources? Sources are availbale on those article. --Libesruinssineced (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Libesruinssineced, when you introduced—between "the integrated circuit" (devised in 1958) and "the Higgs boson" (1964)—"Technetium of Emilio G. Segrè, essential material used for the nuclear weapon", what did you have in mind?
Technetium's existence was confirmed in 1936, which was not between 1958 and 1964—so your entry is out of chronological order.
Secondly, technetium is not a component of nuclear weapons.
Third, this article lists discoveries that have had more than one independent discoverer. You mention only Emilio Segrè, and no other independent discoverer of technetium—therefore technetium does not qualify for inclusion in this list.
You seem not to understand the nature of this article. Please stop making inappropriate entries. Nihil novi (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could have added Carlo Perriero and ordered chronologically yourself. Go and make few changes but not remove remove them. --Libesruinssineced (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Carlo Perrier collaborated with Emilio G. Segrè on proving the existence of the element technetium, so this still does not qualify as more than one independent discovery (though it is still debated whether some German scientists may have discovered technetium earlier, independently of Segrè).
You may or may not be able to justify your other additions to the article. Meanwhile the article has to remain available to other contributors who do have legitimate additions to make; so I'm going to revert your changes. Please reintroduce them after you've done your homework. Nihil novi (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're still removing most of the correct things. I also fixed some grammatical errors. Don't try again.--Libesruinssineced (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that Galileo Galilei and Santorio Santorio, according to you, each independently discovered? Nihil novi (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Gerolamo Cardano, Blaise Pascal, and Pierre de Fermat introduced probability and binomial theorem and partially invented substantial materials." What are "substantial materials"? Nihil novi (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Intromission of the theory of light – Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham succeeded by Pierre Gassendi." What is "intromission" here? What specific connection are you drawing between Alhazen, in the 11th century, and Gassendi, in the 17th? Nihil novi (talk)
In the "17th century" section, you write: "link between arteries and veins  – Marcello Malpighi." All right, who are the other independent discoverers of this discovery? Nihil novi (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the same section, you write: "Spontaneous generation – Francesco Redi, Girolamo Fracastoro, Agostino Bassi and Louis Pasteur." What are you trying to say? That they discovered a phenomenon of spontaneous generation—which does not exist? Nihil novi (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Germ theory of disease – Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur." Redi, in the 17th century, disproved spontaneous generation; he did not put forward a "germ theory of disease." Nihil novi (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" Methane (1778)  – Alessandro Volta." Again, where is the other independent discoverer? This is an article on multiple independent discoverers of the same discovery! Nihil novi (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And so on. Your introduction of all these Italian scientists does nothing to enhance this article on multiple independent discoverers of a given discovery.
I am therefore reverting your massive disruption to this article. Nihil novi (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed several mistakes as well. Go to do a research and adjust them. Things that you've explained can be improved, but now i don't have enough time currently.--Libesruinssineced (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before again making wholesale reverts, please address the questions raised above about your edits. Dumping in a lot of Italian scientists, irrelevantly, does not enhance an article on multiple independent discoveries ! Please read the article on multiple discovery—you clearly have no idea of what the concept means. Nihil novi (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, feel free to remove those in your opinion are not independent or research and other scientists--Libesruinssineced (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Libesruinssineced[edit]

Libesruinssineced, please address the above questions about your edits to this article. Nihil novi (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


User:Libesruinssineced, you have previously been warned by administration not to introduce inappropriate material into "List of multiple discoveries".
You are now doing so again.
Please stop, so that we do not need to waste time resorting to administrative sanctions against you.
Cheers. Nihil novi (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted User:Libesruinssineced's inappropriate 6 October 2015 edits. Nihil novi (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Next time you'll be blocked. My edits are appropriate. Libesruinssineced (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know why scientist before the 13th century can't be added. Where is the section of the 15th Century? Da Vinci made importa,t works in this time.Libesruinssineced (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add Malthusian catastrophe?[edit]

Thomas Robert Malthus put forward this idea in 1798 and Hong Liangji put forward the idea in 1793 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrantgeek (talk • contribs) 22:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide credible sources. If they bear out what you say, please add this item to the List. Nihil novi (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable item in "21st century" section[edit]

The current most recent item in the "21st century" section reads:

"In 2016 it was suggested that the anomalous acceleration effect on satellites with RF power amplifiers that eventually led to EmDrive was actually observed by Roger Shawyer in 1997 and later explained by Dr. Mike McCulloch, as well as a third researcher working for DARPA in the US. As this researcher has not yet come forward due to his research being classified, we may not know for sure.[citation needed]"

"EmDrive" itself seems to be a questionable concept. And one of the experts named, "Dr. Mike McCulloch", appears to have been a Scottish footballer who died in 1973 — 24 years before Shawyer allegedly made his observation!

Elucidation of this item would be appreciated.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A better title: List of independent discoveries[edit]

Multiple means three or more, and many of the examples are simply of two discoveries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.2.34.156 (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "multiple" means "more than one."
However, thanks for questioning the article's title. A more accurate title would be "List of multiple independent discoveries"—or even "...independent discoveries and inventions".
But that would make for a somewhat unwieldy title.
Thanks again.
Nihil novi (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections regarding CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing[edit]

The bullet point regarding CRISPR/Cas9 editing in humans is not only politically controversial (possibly politically motivated), but also factually incorrect. I believe the listing should be removed in this article.

Prima facie, this point should not exist, as the usage of CRISPR/Cas9 to edit human genomes is not a discovery, but rather an application of a previously developed methodology to human cells. The first characterization of bacterial immunity systems via CRISPR is a notable discovery, as well as the application of engineered gRNAs to use CRISPR/Cas9 to edit genomes was also a notable discovery. However, the application of this technology may be anthropogenically interesting, but certainly not scientifically exceptional, as the first applications of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing techniques were also reported in 2013 for bacteria, baker's yeast, fruit flies, zebra fish, mice, and humans.

This section should also at the least be cleaned up due to a further factual error: Gene editing certainly existed prior to the usage of the CRISPR/Cas9 system to edit genomes. See the page on Genome_editing. The wording also suggests that the technique of gene editing was not born until applied to humans. This is also patently false.

Finally, this entry is too political - it's inclusion into this list may be politically motivated, given pending litigation regarding patent validity in a case between the UC Berkeley (Jennifer Doudna) and the Broad Institute (Fei Zhang and George Church). Given a 2012 publication demonstrating that CRISPR/Cas9 could be used as a genetic engineering tool, a patent was filed to protect CRISPR/Cas9 usage in all genome engineering applications. Amidst private communications between Jennifer Doudna and Fei Zhang and George Church, the Broad Institute filed a separate claim for patenting the usage of CRISPR/Cas9 to edit eukaryotic genomes. Regardless of details, litigation into the matter continues through appeals (as of 2017/08/14). Regardless, the interest of the stakeholders here are incompatible, and the existence of this entry favors one over the other. Doudna (and her fellow stake-holder Emmanuelle Charpentier) are litigating to possess sole credit for CRISPR/Cas9 gene engineering, while Zhang and Church are litigating to share credit. As such, Wikipedia is being abused (possibly unwittingly) as a platform legitimatizing one side in regards to an ongoing controversy.

In conclusion, 1) the application of CRISPR/Cas9 to humans is not a significant or notable discovery 2) the section is poorly edited and contains factual errors 3) there may be ulterior, political motives for the addition for CRISPR/CAS9 editing onto this page and as such, the section on CRISPR/Cas9 editing in humans should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onionlee1990 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of multiple discoveries. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I've switched the woman (Ghez) to the man (Genzel).
Nihil novi (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bold format[edit]

MOS:BOLD is fairly clear on the use of boldface text, and the formatting that I removed, and Nihil novi restored, is not at all compliant with that guideline. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Ames, the "List of multiple discoveries" serves as a sort of index that, given boldfaced keywords, readers can search to efficiently find topics of interest.
The "List" can, alternately, be seen as a string of micro-articles on distinctly different topics, wherein each topic can appropriately be boldfaced.
Regards in the new year,
Nihil novi (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... index that, given boldfaced keywords, readers can search to efficiently find topics of interest. ... a string of micro-articles on distinctly different topics, wherein each topic can appropriately be boldfaced. — Neither of those things is mentioned on MOS:BOLD, and in particular MOS:BOLD#OTHER, which says "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases". Is there some part of MOS: that supports your usage of bold format? Mitch Ames (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those "few special cases". Also appropriate here is another Wikipedia rule: "Ignore all rules".
Nihil novi (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think so. I don't think you've actually supplied a good reason why boldface should be used: boldface is used to visually distinguish very specific text on a page. Keeping that in mind, there's no justification to have a huge chunk of an article bolded. The fact that the article is a list of many items that may be individually perused is served by it being...a list of discrete bullet points. The bold does nothing more. Also, you can't just invoke "ignore all rules" when there are specific problems created by the ignorance: because bold is used universally but in extremely particular ways on Wikipedia, it borders on being semantically confusing.
More concretely, there are other outlines and indexes on Wikipedia, and none of them do this. Remsense留 01:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely ramapant abuse of boldfacing to try to make words "pop-out" at the reader, and is not what boldface is for on Wikipedia. It is almost exclusively (outside section headings and table headers) used to indicate terms that redirect to the same article, yet zero of these invention names do so, and the result is a visually messy and reader-confusing presentation. PS: WP:IAR applies to ignoring the letter of a rule to get a necessary result that demonstrably, objectively improves the encyclopedia, because the rule is poorly written (i.e. failed to account for an important case). This is nothing like that; it's simply fandom of putting excessive amounts of boldface everywhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is valuable for readers to be able to quickly identify the subject of each list entry. Currently some entries start with the name of the discovery, others start with the names of the discoverers. Some start with dates, others do not. Boldface does seem to be a quick and dirty means of achieving this identification given the diverse formats employed here. Possible better solutions include using consistent prose formatting or restructuring the whole list as a table. ~Kvng (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant citations[edit]

I've done a minor cleanup pass on this, but one thing I notice is that there are a large number of redundant/duplicate citations. A citation that is inline in its entirety (appearing in "References") should not be duplicated in its entirety again in the lower "Bibliography" section. If a source needs to be cited more than once at different pages, give the full citation only once, in "Bibliography", and use {{sfnp}} to refer to it multiple times at different pages. If a source is only at the same page (or page range) multiple times, then keep its details in one <ref name="Smith 2024">{{cite book ...}}</ref> and refer to it again later as <ref name="Smith 2024" />, instead of putting it in "Bibliography". Lots of the citations are also untemplated and wildly inconsitent with the rest of the citations, and this is not okay per WP:CITESTYLE. (Using templated citations is not required, but consistently formatted citations are, and the obvious way to do that in an article with mostly templated citations is to template the remainder of them, since making them consistent with the templated citations without using the templates would be much more tedious and error-prone than just templating them.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image mess[edit]

This article has a really excessive number of right-alined images which simply stack up and make the page have a pile of images extending well below the bottom of the article. This needs to be resolved by staggering images left and right, and probably by removing some we don't really need.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we don't need any of the images. They don't add any value to the article. If we absolutely had to have some images, I would suggest displaying them in pairs (or larger groups if applicable) showing two people who discovered the same thing, with an appropriate caption ("Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace both came up with the idea of evolution through natural selection"). Mitch Ames (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I prefer illustration more than you do, so I would not go for deletion of all images as a first and only step. My go-to approach for things like this is to address the objective problem (images marching away into the sunset at the bottom of the page) before taking on subjective-preference matters like whether any images at all are appropriate. I.e., do a minimal fix first instead of a radical change. But, yes, pairs with sensible captions would make a lot of sense and be more encyclopedically useful. It might also fix the "marching" problem on its own, so good idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_multiple_discoveries&oldid=1206163714"