Talk:Network theory

Mathematics High‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.

Systems High‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Link to cybernetics

The template:Cybernetics is a nice box (below), but it implies network theory is some subcategory of cybernetics. I think that network theory is actually much wider than this, even if historically it grew out of cybernetics. --stochata 2 July 2005 07:23 (UTC)

Founder of network theory

I couldn't find any info on Google to back this up, but I'm currently attending Northwestern and the concensus among professors here seems to be that Prof. Luis Amaral is the founder of Network Theory. Anyone care to back me up on this? --jp3z

>> No Luis Amaral is not the founder. Network theory started a long way back. It is a field of mathematics.

>> You may want to ask Edsger W. Dijkstra. 172.56.38.57 (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding me...

Network theory is a stub? That is sad. I'll try to improve it if I can. Sr13 03:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info on networktehory

A lot of information on network analysis & measures is under "Social networks" - in my opinion that should be moved here. - AD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.196.198.66 (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the content from network analysis into this page.Delaszk (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Network Science ??

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus that a merge is feasible or productive, with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I'm reading, Network Science and Network Theory (as presented in this current article) are the same thing. Any thoughts on whether or not there are actually two discrete topics here, or if this could be merged? Sprhodes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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) 19:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to locate this previous discussion at the location indicated or in the archive there. I am going to put up some merge banners and direct discussion here. ~Kvng (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked a little more closely to see if, absent any discussion for over a year, I could perform the merge. I determined that Network theory is apparently an application of Graph theory and Network science is Network theory plus other stuff. There's not an obvious merge opportunity here. ~Kvng (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the lack of a clear aim for the merge and its impracticality, as discussed above.Klbrain (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest reopening this discussion. I disagree with the comments by Kvng above. In my experience network theory and network science effectively synonyms. Network science is in a sense graph theory but approached from a completely different viewpoint warranting separate pages. The material on Network theory and Network science largely overlaps. I would propose merging the former into the latter, in particular bringing the discussion in Network theory#Network analysis into the Network Science page. In general, a lot of the pages on network science are pretty messy so the whole field could use a cleanup.--Fractalfalcon (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fractalfalcon: I made my comments based on what I read in the leads of the two articles. Do you think one or both of the leads are inaccurate? ~Kvng (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: I think the network science lead is accurate. I think the first paragraph of network theory is slightly confusing because it effectively just states the definition of graph theory - where network science/theory differs from graph theory is precisely in the applications. The remainder of the network theory lead largely says the same as the network science lead. I do in a sense see an argument for both pages (in the same way that "Theoretical Physics" is a way of doing "Physics", "Network Theory" is a way of doing "Network Science"). However, the material that would warrant being in Network theory is not currently there but is pretty much what is covered by Network science#Network properties. The material currently discussed in Network theory would also be better described as Network science. Note that several sections on the two pages overlap heavily. --Fractalfalcon (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fractalfalcon, I'm all for eliminating overlap. If you're confident a merge is the best way to do that, give it a try. An alternative approach is to delete repeated material from one article or the other. Once that is done, it should be easier to evaluate whether a merge is warranted. ~Kvng (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: Ok thanks. I do think a merge is probably best. I will get the ball rolling this week. Obviously I haven't merged before so I will try to tread lightly and not break too much.... Thanks! Fractalfalcon (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fractalfalcon: Has enough been done, or do you think that there is more to do? Klbrain (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category theory

This article talks a lot about networks as graphs, but doesn't include very much at all about categories. There's been a lot of research in recent years about networks from a (monoidal) categorical perspective, with promising results, including work by John Baez and Brendan Fong. I think we should include some of that here. --Daviddwd (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Daviddwd (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Difference from Graph Theory

What is the difference between this and graph theory? Seems like the exact same thing to me. I think the article should clarify more. 128.148.231.12 (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Cascade (social network theory)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cascade (social network theory) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 12 § Cascade (social network theory) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Diktyology" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Diktyology and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 12 § Diktyology until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]