Talk:List of Hendrik Wade Bode patents

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge proposal

I reverted the edit suggesting a merge for two reasons:

It was suggested at a past article peer review that this article be created Quote: Perhaps the patents and the works he wrote could be in a list subarticle (List of Hendrik Wade Bode patents and works?) and this is the reason I moved it from the original article and then created this list.
The list is so large it would destroy the continuity of the article if it were moved back. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patents are not "awarded". They are granted.

My mission in life seems to be drive-by edits of "awarded" to "granted" on any Wikipedia page that mentions a patent. Here, though, the error is in the heading, and I don't know how to change that. Can anyone help? Thx. 93.92.153.12 (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding recent reverts

Dr. K, your recent edit summaries imply that it is up to me to find sources to establish notability for this list. It isn't. The burden of evidence lies with you. Suggesting a Google search is not an adequate response because I always make an effort to find sources before adding a notability tag. A Google search was the first thing I tried, and I found nothing useful. Have you looked closely at the search results? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. If you are not able to find reliable sources using Google in such an easy case as this you should not be tagging articles. Tagging and edit-warring are easy. Sitting down to do a decent Google search before you tag is simple due diligence. Other editors should not be serfs to bring the sources for the tagging overlords, especially if the sources are easy to find. If you could not find any sources you should have asked me as I told you in my edit summary. But you did not. You chose to retag and edit-war instead. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~And to answer your question Have you looked closely at the search results? Yes I have. My fifteen new sources attest to that fact. Have you?~~ Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to reproduce the search string in your edit summary ([1]] and got a 400 error. So I tried searching patents awarded to Hendrik Wade Bode. I got a lot of links to Facebook, Flickr and sites like this that were probably copies of this Wikipedia page. Did you add some extra search parameters? RockMagnetist (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edit-summary link was truncated due to the field overflow so it gave you the error. From your reply, I now realise that you did make an effort to at least search before you tagged so I withdraw my comments about due diligence. Due to this misunderstanding I may have phrased my replies above a bit stronger than I would have liked. But I accept your explanation and withdraw my comments. I can now see you are not the average drive-by tagger. FWIW I did not really use any special parameters other than the strings "Hendrik Bode patents" and "Hendrik Wade Bode patents" in Google Books and the Web. Needless to say I stayed away from Google Books which are copies of Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I didn't take the comments personally. It's easy to mistake someone for a drive-by tagger. I think you could trim that list of citations a little; for example, the first one requires a TIFF plug-in. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]