可靠來源

注意到閣下在Special:Diff/76079896引用了一段短片作為來源,但該來源不屬維基百科可用的WP:可靠來源(例如因為非經正式途徑出版,內容亦未經審核),因為不能加入。敬希垂注,祝編安!—— 留言2023年2月22日 (三) 22:37 (UTC)回复

閣下可以引用已出版的論文、書籍作為來源,而假如影片是實驗錄影/數據模擬之類,文字難以表達,但有助讀者理解主題的影片,符合Wikipedia:外部链接要求的話亦可加入作為外部鏈結(而非引用作「來源」),但單純朗讀的影片,其資訊並非必須以影片格式為載體,因此不必鏈結,而應引用其朗讀內容的原始出處(倘若出自可靠來源)。—— 留言2023年2月22日 (三) 22:43 (UTC)回复
I added a ref to replace the original one.
https://encyclopedia.pub/video/video_detail/617
In fact, I am the author for related discussions. Thanks, -Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月22日 (三) 23:49 (UTC)回复
既然此短片是adapted from另一已引用的來源,似乎未見重複引用短片(因為也是僅有朗讀)的理由。引用自己著作時請留意在維基百科上WP:SELFCITE的提醒,例如此類情況下在下(&)建議避免引用該短片,以免給予其他編者一種為推銷影片而引用的觀感,感謝。—— 留言2023年2月23日 (四) 00:03 (UTC)回复
Hello, the video added discussions for the analogy with skiing and kayaking in both English and Chinese versions.
It should not be simply viewed as "僅有朗讀". Please let me know if I can be helpful. Thanks, -Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月23日 (四) 00:08 (UTC)回复
不太認同閣下的見解,因為雖然有滑雪片段,但該片段與主題無關,與主題相關的提到skiing和kayaking的內容實質上仍是依賴旁白朗讀文字(所以在下說「僅有朗讀」),不能算是善用了「影片」此一媒體的表現方式,而應直接使用文字描述。—— 留言2023年2月23日 (四) 00:19 (UTC)回复
Skiing was first used to discuss SDIC (i.e., butterfly effect) by Prof. Lorenz (1993). We cited and added discussions in https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/13/11/1892.
Please let me know. Thanks.--Bwshen留言2023年2月23日 (四) 00:23 (UTC)回复
直接引用該論文,會比引用影片更加符合WP:可供查證方針的要求。—— 留言2023年2月23日 (四) 00:29 (UTC)回复
A current trend is to provide a video clip to support the contents in paper.
Please see the strategy of MDPI Encyclopedia. As mentioned, the new reference was posted by MDPI Encyclopedia.
Why? For example, "skiing" was used in Lorenz (1993). Many readers were not aware of it.
Shen et al. (2022) extended the concept to include kayaking and used skiing and kayaking provided an analogy.
A staff of MDPI Encyclopedia already "reviewed" it.
Please let me know if you have additional questions or comments. Thanks, -Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月23日 (四) 00:36 (UTC)回复
(?)疑問「the new reference was posted by MDPI Encyclopedia.」MDPI的確有一本peer-reviewed journal稱為 Encyclopedia,但影片似乎衹是發佈於"Encyclopedia Pub",是user-generated content collection platform[1]而非peer-reviewed journal?假若如此,其"review"與傳統審稿相比如何?(舉例arxiv preprint亦要經"moderation"纔能上線但WP:可靠來源指引訂明此種程度的review不能使arxiv成為可靠。)另外不太確定閣下「Why? For example, "skiing" was used in Lorenz (1993). Many readers were not aware of it.」一句是指not aware of the fact that "skiing" was used in Lorenz (1993)還是not aware of what skiing is,若是後者,應考慮使用WP:內部鏈結或以WP:註腳說明,讓讀者在skiing和kayaking條目找到插圖或影片,與是否在蝴蝶效应引用來源無關。—— 留言2023年2月23日 (四) 01:13 (UTC)回复
您也是編輯。請讓我知道內容中有那些錯誤。我可以修改。另,有messenger或line 的帳號嗎?語言討論可能比較有效率。謝謝!--Bwshen留言2023年2月23日 (四) 01:43 (UTC)回复
又,影片是根據peer reviewed的文章製成。
Encyclopedia pub 和 MDPI encyclopedia 已經正式合作。後者鼓勵先透過peer review 來確認內容,然後,製造成簡短的視頻,於前者發表。--Bwshen留言2023年2月23日 (四) 01:53 (UTC)回复
Please let me know your email address. I can forward the original email that includes the following messages:
---
Invitation to share your Video Entry on “Analogy for Chaos and Butterfly Effect” Submitted to MDPI Encyclopedia
Dear Bowen,
Thank you for the video. We have uploaded the video to the Encyclopedia,
please check the following link to confirm:
https://encyclopedia.pub/user/video_invitation/edit/593
If you do not have an account, please register first:
https://encyclopedia.pub/register
You can send us your suggestions through email or submit this video online
through the above link. We would be appreciative if the submission could be
completed within 5 days.
Encyclopedia is a free and open platform for researchers to share their
knowledge and ideas. Authors can earn credits, which can be exchanged for
MDPI vouchers, through creating, liking, editing, commenting and sharing
entries on the Encyclopedia platform.
We look forward to your contributions and hope that you will also be able to
make use of this service. If you have any suggestions or questions, please
feel free to contact us.
Kind regards,
Rita Xu
Encyclopedia Editorial Office
office@encyclopedia.pub
Twitter: https://twitter.com/EncyclopediaMD1
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Encyclopedia-MDPI-102056985743398
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/encyclopedia/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnvLFYQq1NTG7ulY3h8lBYA
Encyclopedia Outstanding Contributor Awards 2022 - Open for Application
https://encyclopedia.pub/announcement/view/15
--
MDPI
Postfach, CH-4020 Basel, Switzerland
Office: St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel
Tel.: +41 61 683 77 34; Fax:  +41 61 302 89 18
https://encyclopedia.pub--Bwshen留言2023年2月23日 (四) 02:09 (UTC)回复
感謝澄清Encyclopedia pub和MDPI encyclopedia的關係。但尚未明白閣下所指需要引用此影片的理由為何,既然影片是同作者「根據peer reviewed的文章製成」,而已引用該論文,重複引用影片似乎不會增加可信性,反而可能屬於應避免的WP:CITEBOMB「大量的引注僅僅指向一個事實⋯⋯引入的來源往往只是其他來源的轉述」情況。
另一(?)疑問,Lorenz ref 13似乎未見提及bounded或finite,是否不能用於佐證「軌跡在有限範圍內的特性,可由蝴蝶有限的雙翼所顯示」句?假如ref 13不能佐證該句,亦應移除段尾的引註13,保留段中間Lorenz觀點的引註13即可。
(與編輯相關的討論,在下傾向於維基百科公開進行,以便其他編者檢視。)—— 留言2023年2月23日 (四) 23:33 (UTC)回复
哈囉,該影片整理了"幾篇文章",是一個精簡但"自我完整"(self contained)的版本,用來介紹混沌。譬如說,混沌系統的二個重要特性為:解的有界性,和正的Lyapunov exponent(LE),這兩個同時成立,才能表示混沌。一個線性系統,y "=ay, a>0。可以有正的LE,但解不是無界的,因此不是混沌系統。該民謠應該屬於這裡種情況。我們文章內有詳細討論。許多人,沒有時間閱讀我們的文章。因此,我們提供一個精簡的語音版本。閣下,可以審閱內容,和我們2022的兩篇文章比較。若有疑慮,請指教。又,電話討論可能比較有效。--Bwshen留言2023年2月24日 (五) 01:56 (UTC)回复
y "=ay, a>0 is a simple system for instability, mentioned by Lorenz (2008).--Bwshen留言2023年2月24日 (五) 02:23 (UTC)回复
Please also review related entries, e.g., "Butterfly effect" (English) and "Chaos Theory". If there is any inaccurate information, please let me know. Once again, we agree that scientific accuracy is important. Here is my skype bo.wen.shen. Let me know if it is convenient to chat via a phone call. A list of my papers can be found: https://bwshen.sdsu.edu/shen_publications_all.html--Bwshen留言2023年2月24日 (五) 02:27 (UTC)回复
https://bwshen.sdsu.edu/shen_publications_all.html--Bwshen留言2023年2月24日 (五) 02:31 (UTC)回复
其實中文系版本蝴蝶效應的圖一,需要被修正。有機會可以聊聊。--Bwshen留言2023年2月24日 (五) 03:17 (UTC)回复
感謝說明引用影片的理由,的確有一定意義。(雖然對是否符合維基百科當前的「可靠」定義仍存疑問,但可以留待日後再考慮。)雖然整理幾篇文章的二手來源為維基百科所重視,但已引用的ref 10的subsection 3.1似乎是整理了同樣幾篇文章,甚至更多,而影片內容大致上就是對應該節?如此「整理了"幾篇文章"」似乎不是重複引用的理由。從百科全書引註方面考慮,已有詳細原文,自不必再引用精簡的語音版本,若有需要可考慮放在WP:外部鏈結
關於另一問題,在下不是質疑閣下文章內對民謠情況的定性,也不是質疑「軌跡在有限範圍內的特性,可由蝴蝶有限的雙翼所顯示」(句1),但維基百科的引註規則是,除了scientific accuracy,還着重WP:非原創研究,還望閣下理解。該方針規定,對原始文獻的詮釋也需要引用二手來源,假若Lorenz 2008 (ref 13)不能直接支持句1而ref 10可以直接支持(不論是原創觀點抑或對ref 13等來源的總結皆可),則句1應引用ref 10而非ref 13,所以需要向閣下請教是否屬於此情況。—— 留言2023年2月25日 (六) 00:55 (UTC)回复
再者該網站收錄"user-generated content collection platform for researchers with additional contributions published on scientific websites by competent experts"[2],除非該短片有經過編審流程,否則user-generated content按WP:可靠來源一般也要避免使用(維基百科對arxiv也是同樣處理),已有更好來源(期刊)佐證同一語段的情況下,不應採用較不可靠的來源。—— 留言2023年2月23日 (四) 00:14 (UTC)回复
Please let me know if the current ref [13], https://encyclopedia.pub/video/video_detail/617, posted by Encyclopedia, is good.
All materials have been published. https://bwshen.sdsu.edu/
Thanks,
-Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月23日 (四) 00:18 (UTC)回复
(1) The video summarize many studies, including
Shen, B.-W., R. A. Pielke Sr., X. Zeng, J. Cui#, S. Faghih-Naini#, W. Paxson#, A. Kesarkar, X. Zeng, R. Atlas, 2022c: The Dual Nature of Chaos and Order in the Atmosphere. Atmosphere 13, no. 11: 1892. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13111892.
Shen, B.-W.*, R. A. Pielke Sr., X. Zeng, J. Cui, S. Faghih-Naini, W. Paxson, R. Atlas, 2022b: Three Kinds of Butterfly Effects Within Lorenz Models. Encyclopedia 2, no. 3: 1250-1259. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia2030084
Shen, B.-W.*, R. A. Pielke Sr., X. Zeng, J.-J. Baik,  S. Faghih-Naini#, J. Cui#, and R. Atlas, 2021: Is Weather Chaotic? Coexistence of Chaos and Order within a Generalized Lorenz Model. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 102(1), E148-E158. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0165.1
Shen, B.-W.*, 2019a: Aggregated Negative Feedback in a Generalized Lorenz Model. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) 1950037 (20 pages). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218127419500378
Shen, B.-W.*, 2019b: On the Predictability of 30-day Global Mesoscale Simulations of Multiple African Easterly Waves during Summer 2006: A View with a Generalized Lorenz Model. Geosciences 2019, 9(7), 281; https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9070281  
In the last one, we stated
"
We first present two features of chaotic solutions, including the divergence of nearby trajectories and solution boundedness. The sensitive dependence of solutions on ICs has been illustrated using the divergence of two initial nearby trajectories within the phase space of the 3DLM.
"
(2) the above studies provided references, including many textbooks. Please read them for details.
(3) All of the materials in the video have been reviewed.
Please let me know if you find specific information that is not accurate.
I will point out the reference.
Thanks,
-Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 01:47 (UTC)回复
BTW,
"
条目应该基于来自可靠的第三方的出版物,来源应具有事实验证和准确性声誉。这意味着我们只发表具有可靠性的作者的观点,而不是解读第一手来源的维基人自己的观点。如何合适的列明来源总是依赖于情境。常识和编辑者的判断是这个过程不可或缺的一部分。下文列出一些可靠来源类型和来源可靠性问题,这不是作为一个完整的列表,仅作示例。
来源的定义
来源在维基百科中有下面三个含义:
  • 作品本身(文献,报道等)
  • 作品的作者(作者,记者等)
  • 作品的发表者(某大学出版社,某新闻社等)
三者都可以影响内容的可靠性。可靠来源可能意味着有可靠出版过程的出版物,在主题上有权威的作者,或者两者兼具。来源的可靠性应可以被常人理解。
"
Currently, I am a lead guest Editor for "Atmosphere" and an Editor for Geoscience Letters. I have reviewed more than 30 different journals. https://bwshen.sdsu.edu/shen_services.html
  • Reviewers for the following journals:
  1. Advances in Data Science and Adaptive Analysis
  2. Advances in Meteorology
  3. Animals
  4. Annales Geophysicae
  5. Atmosphere
  6. Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
  7. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
  8. Atmospheric Science Letters (ASL)
  9. Chaos Solitons & Fractals (CSF)
  10. Climate Dynamics
  11. Earth Interactions
  12. Electronics
  13. Fractal and Fractional
  14. Frontiers in Earth Sciences
  15. Future Generation Computer Systems
  16. Geophysical Research Letters (GRL)
  17. Geoscience Letters
  18. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos (IJBC)
  19. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
  20. Journal of Climate
  21. Journal of Dispersion Science and Technology
  22. Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR)
  23. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing
  24. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences (JAS)
  25. Meteorological Applications
  26. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
  27. Monthly Weather Review (MWR)
  28. Nature Communication
  29. Nonlinear Dynamics
  30. Physica Scripta
  31. PLOS ONE
  32. Pure and Applied Geophysics
  33. Tellus A
  34. Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (TAO)
  35. Weather and Forecasting (WAF)
--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 02:05 (UTC)回复
維基中文版"蝴蝶效應"的討論,有許多問題。首先,圖一,最起碼的修正:將attractor 改為trajectory。更重要的是,其定義不準確。經由討論,顯示,你至少同意勞倫茲2008年的看法。有關蝴蝶效應,請參考勞氏1993出版的書。而我們2022年的文章,有補充說明。閣下,如果有心改善準確性,請思考以上論述。我們可以深入討論。(加入一個不準確頁面的討論,有一定向風險。)--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 05:38 (UTC)回复
關於圖片,較難改動,可能需要製作一張新的(中文)圖片,或者從c:Category:Chaos theory嘗試從已有圖片中,找出合適的圖片替換。閣下可能誤會了在下請教的問題,在下沒有質疑勞倫茲2008年的看法,在下質疑的是該文沒有直接支持「軌跡在有限範圍內的特性,可由蝴蝶有限的雙翼所顯示」。假若閣下的意思是Lorenz 2008的看法,雖然沒有直接寫明,仍包含「軌跡在有限範圍內的特性,可由蝴蝶有限的雙翼所顯示」一點,則正正屬於需要引用其他來源作出此詮釋的情況,而非引用Lorenz 2008。假若閣下認為有直接寫明,請給出頁碼和引文。維基百科的引用是要方便查證,倘引用較不直接相關的內容,無助於讀者查證,若純屬acknowledgement and attribution用途,前句已引述Lorenz 2008。—— 留言2023年2月25日 (六) 11:44 (UTC)回复
(1) I am working on it; (2) are you aware of the butterfly pattern solution (e.g., the first Figure of Butterfly Effect in English)? it is obvious that the butterfly wings are finite. I will keep you posted soon. -Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 12:05 (UTC)回复
I'm not saying the wings are not finite. (I thought this is the third time I'm reiterating this.) I'm saying Lorenz 2008 never mentions this, so can't be used to support that statement.-- 留言2023年2月25日 (六) 12:10 (UTC)回复
To be clear, I fully agree that in File:Lorenz_attractor_yb.svg the wings are finite and this suggests the trajectory is bounded. I never say this statement is wrong. But whether the editor agrees or not means nothing on Wikipedia. We should cite suitable sources that directly supports the statement. Shen 2019 does check out this statement, while Lorenz 2008 doesn't seem to, so we should cite the former (and maybe other sources) but not the latter. Of course if Lorenz 2008 directly supports the statement we can cite it as well.—— 留言2023年2月25日 (六) 12:30 (UTC)回复
Please let me know your email address. I can forward the original email that includes the following messages:
---
Invitation to share your Video Entry on “Analogy for Chaos and Butterfly Effect” Submitted to MDPI Encyclopedia
Dear Bowen,
Thank you for the video. We have uploaded the video to the Encyclopedia,
please check the following link to confirm:
https://encyclopedia.pub/user/video_invitation/edit/593
If you do not have an account, please register first:
https://encyclopedia.pub/register
You can send us your suggestions through email or submit this video online
through the above link. We would be appreciative if the submission could be
completed within 5 days.
Encyclopedia is a free and open platform for researchers to share their
knowledge and ideas. Authors can earn credits, which can be exchanged for
MDPI vouchers, through creating, liking, editing, commenting and sharing
entries on the Encyclopedia platform.
We look forward to your contributions and hope that you will also be able to
make use of this service. If you have any suggestions or questions, please
feel free to contact us.
Kind regards,
Rita Xu
Encyclopedia Editorial Office
office@encyclopedia.pub
Twitter: https://twitter.com/EncyclopediaMD1
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Encyclopedia-MDPI-102056985743398
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/encyclopedia/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnvLFYQq1NTG7ulY3h8lBYA
Encyclopedia Outstanding Contributor Awards 2022 - Open for Application
https://encyclopedia.pub/announcement/view/15
--
MDPI
Postfach, CH-4020 Basel, Switzerland
Office: St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel
Tel.: +41 61 683 77 34; Fax:  +41 61 302 89 18
https://encyclopedia.pub--Bwshen留言2023年2月23日 (四) 02:09 (UTC)回复
Hello. Although this project looks at least have chances to further develop, but I personally don't think it should be used for now. It is too early to use as Wikipedia readers could hardly distinguish it from other unreliable sources. I personally refer you to read w:Wikipedia:RSSELF. Also, a similar case is the Researchgate, which is normally not regarded as a reliable source here.--ときさき くるみ 2023年2月25日 (六) 05:55 (UTC)回复
Please think of yourself as a reviewer or editor. Please let me know whether any specific information is inaccurate.
I will provide you references. Thanks very much!--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 05:58 (UTC)回复
BTW,
"
条目应该基于来自可靠的第三方的出版物,来源应具有事实验证和准确性声誉。这意味着我们只发表具有可靠性的作者的观点,而不是解读第一手来源的维基人自己的观点。如何合适的列明来源总是依赖于情境。常识和编辑者的判断是这个过程不可或缺的一部分。下文列出一些可靠来源类型和来源可靠性问题,这不是作为一个完整的列表,仅作示例。
来源的定义
来源在维基百科中有下面三个含义:
  • 作品本身(文献,报道等)
  • 作品的作者(作者,记者等)
  • 作品的发表者(某大学出版社,某新闻社等)
三者都可以影响内容的可靠性。可靠来源可能意味着有可靠出版过程的出版物,在主题上有权威的作者,或者两者兼具。来源的可靠性应可以被常人理解。
"
Currently, I am a lead guest Editor for "Atmosphere" and an Editor for Geoscience Letters. I have reviewed more than 30 different journals. https://bwshen.sdsu.edu/shen_services.html
  • Reviewers for the following journals:
  1. Advances in Data Science and Adaptive Analysis
  2. Advances in Meteorology
  3. Animals
  4. Annales Geophysicae
  5. Atmosphere
  6. Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
  7. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
  8. Atmospheric Science Letters (ASL)
  9. Chaos Solitons & Fractals (CSF)
  10. Climate Dynamics
  11. Earth Interactions
  12. Electronics
  13. Fractal and Fractional
  14. Frontiers in Earth Sciences
  15. Future Generation Computer Systems
  16. Geophysical Research Letters (GRL)
  17. Geoscience Letters
  18. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos (IJBC)
  19. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
  20. Journal of Climate
  21. Journal of Dispersion Science and Technology
  22. Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR)
  23. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing
  24. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences (JAS)
  25. Meteorological Applications
  26. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
  27. Monthly Weather Review (MWR)
  28. Nature Communication
  29. Nonlinear Dynamics
  30. Physica Scripta
  31. PLOS ONE
  32. Pure and Applied Geophysics
  33. Tellus A
  34. Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (TAO)
  35. Weather and Forecasting (WAF)
--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 06:02 (UTC)回复
No, it seems that you have misunderstand the statement here, maybe you are an authority in this area, but here, the authority refers to the authority of the publisher. For example, if Alice published an article on one journal and Bob wants to cite it on Wikipedia, then the authority means the authority of Alice, not Bob. If you are telling me your real identity, a similar case happened on English Wikipedia about ten years ago when Dr. Timothy Messer-Kruse tried to fix some errors in the article "Haymarket affair". He used a similar strategy by announcing he is an expert, but some editors refused him, which later caused criticism towards Wikipedia.--ときさき くるみ 2023年2月25日 (六) 06:12 (UTC)回复
I understand your concern. That's why I asked the following.
(1) first, please let me know if there is any inaccurate information. I will provide responses.
I additionally added two papers Shen 2019a, b; please search "bounded" or "boundedness" in both papers.
The two papers supported related discussions.
Additionally,
(2) I am qualified for the 2nd one of the following:
来源在维基百科中有下面三个含义:
  • 作品本身(文献,报道等)
  • 作品的作者(作者,记者等)
  • 作品的发表者(某大学出版社,某新闻社等)
https://bwshen.sdsu.edu/
https://bwshen.sdsu.edu/shen_publications_all.html
Thanks,
-Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 06:32 (UTC)回复
do you use Skype or facebook messenger? If so, I'd suggest discussing related issues using Skype or facebook messenger? I can host a zoom meeting as well. Please let me know. Thanks, -Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 06:37 (UTC)回复
I actually have both, but what's the topic you would like to discuss here?--ときさき くるみ 2023年2月25日 (六) 06:39 (UTC)回复
my fb id is https://www.facebook.com/bowen.shen1. If you have a concern, I am happy to discuss with you via fb messenger.--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 06:44 (UTC)回复
Looks good, I am going to further review them. Also I suggest you use |quote= to indicate your words in the article. Cheers.--ときさき くるみ 2023年2月25日 (六) 06:38 (UTC)回复
I mainly use the "visual editor". Regarding your suggestions, please give me specific codes and contents. I will review them and add them properly. Thanks!--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 06:46 (UTC)回复
|quote=的方式可以參考Special:Diff/76113685,從來源標明直接支持條目內容的關鍵句。—— 留言2023年2月25日 (六) 12:07 (UTC)回复
for papers in pdf format, it is not challenging for users to find related discussions, e.g., searching "bounded" or "boundedness". Thanks, -Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 12:33 (UTC)回复
I fully agree, so it is usually not needed. I think Tokisaki Kurumi's comment is just in case we'd still like to cite Lorenz 2008 for that statement, since (as I've said) searching for "bounded" and "finite" etc yields no result in Lorenz 2008 and in this case, the editor adding it should give the page number or quote to help locating the relevant content.—— 留言2023年2月25日 (六) 12:39 (UTC)回复
(But of course we've got enough. Avoid en:WP:OVERCITE.)—— 留言2023年2月25日 (六) 12:43 (UTC)回复
I added the following from Lorenz (2008):
--
A related property of chaos is absence of true periodicity. For many systems, because the number of possible states, each differing more than a given amount from any of the others, is limited, we can be sure that if we wait long enough we shall encounter a state close to one that we have seen before, and we may think of the later state as the earlier one plus a small perturbation.
--
"recurrence" also indicates "boundedness". I appreciate your comments and suggestions which helped clarify for many readers.
Thanks,
-Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 13:17 (UTC)回复
BTW, the first figure was added by Eliot in early 2008. (Unfortunately, the last edit by Eliot was done in 2016.) I already sent Eliot the following message:
--
Hi Eliot,
   I am wondering whether the first figure (image) in the entry of Butterfly Effect (in Chinese)
was added by you. I have some comments and would like to discuss with you.
Thanks,
-Bowen
--
As mentioned, a quick fix is to replace "attractor" by "trajectory".
Thanks,
-Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 14:44 (UTC)回复