This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
To be included on this
stand-alone list, each entry should meet the following
list criteria:This list contains
notable publications in geology. A publication should appear in this list if
|
... is not a sub-discipline of geology and should not have a permanent place on this list as it is currently constructed. See [ [1]] for my statement on the placement of soil science among other peer disciplines. Similarly, climatology appears to be out of place on this list. Paleorthid 20:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
List of publications in biology was put up for deletion at AfD but survived the process as there was no consensus. However, as someone who has been concerned with this Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls project for some months now, I am concerned. There is indeed a case that the material here is not free of a POV. How do we determine importance? Earlier this year the participants on List of publications in chemistry debated this and decided on two matters. First, they tightened up the criteria for inclusion, in particular insisted that publications that were important as an introduction had to have had a wider importance such as altering the way all future text books were written or altered the way the subject was taught. Second, they decided that all new entries should be raised for debate over a 10 day period on the talk page to determine whether they should be kept or deleted. Most existing entries were debated and several were deleted. This has worked reasonably well although it would be better if more people had participated. It is clear enough that it is not, for these articles, sufficient to allow anyone to add entries, as only very obvious nonsense is likely to be deleted. Each entry needs the consideration of several editors. I urge all interested in this project to look at what the chemists here have done and consider whether something similar or even better can be used on all pages in the project. I am putting this paragraph on all the other talk pages of this project. -- Bduke 08:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is clearly a stub, but I'm too new to editing to figure out how to label it as such. Pete Tillman 03:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
In terms of its length it is not a stub, but I agree it is very incomplete as are many similar lists. The discussion above that I started earlier is very relevant. How do we ensure that entries to this article are not from POV pushers. I'm not a Geologist. I try to look after the similar article on Chemistry. There we debate all new entries. Every entry has to have a section on "Importance" and "Description" or it will be deleted. I think it more important to add new good entries and expand on the importance and description of current entries, then it is to make this a stub. -- Bduke 04:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine, discuss anything you want about it here. I'll keep it on my watch list. BTW, I see that User:APH who started off all these science pearl lists has not contributed to Wikidedia since January. We are on our own. -- Bduke 07:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls#Header template to all project list pages on rewording the template that generates the header to this list of publications to make the criteria for entries to the list rather tighter and better reflecting the notability criteria of WP. The motivation is to better take into account comments that have been made when some of these lists have been proposed for deletion. -- Bduke 00:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I propose deleting Thomas Gold's The Deep Hot Biosphere from the Petroleum Geology section. Gold's work isn't widely accepted in petroleum geology -- his abiogenic theory of petroleum genesis is now considered borderline crackpot. Comments? -- Pete Tillman 05:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC), Consulting Geologist
Please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls##Categories of important publications. Thanks, APH 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering. Peter W. Lipman's work is mainly about large volume volcanic eruptions in the Basin and Range Province. The publication cited is about St. Helen. He does not seem notable enough to have a biography. I think, if fourteen post-docs acknowledge him as a master, that's it. If the publication is acknowledged as a masterpiece, so must be the master who wrote it too and vice-e-versa. Nothing can be done about it? -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 07:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
citation}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Can we please define some specific criteria for notability? I can agree with the "Topic Creator", "Breakthrough", and "Influence" criteria. But I think having "Introduction" and "Latest and Greatest" is not helpful. It will only invite people to post their favorite textbook (such as S. Boggs' great, but not "important", stratigraphy book) or highly specialized papers that will need to be updated constantly. Also, most topic creators, breakthroughs and influential ideas are published in peer reviewed papers these days and books are only compilations of such works (note that this is the rule, but there are a few exceptions). I would like to propose that we discuss any further book additions (especially those published after 1975). Also, we should add more peer reviewed papers so we can give researchers the credit they deserve. Hamsterlopithecus ( talk) 19:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to note that the template at the top of the article applies to all these lists of publications. It should not be just discussed here. I agree about the recent change to remove textbooks but only if they have not had a massive influence on the way a subject is taught. I have altered the template to add that and this brings it into line with the criteria on the chemistry list, which has not been using the template. I will add the template there if the template changes settle down. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I went for it. Some restructuring, some pruning of dead wood, some new material where we were clearly lacking. Geochem remains a problem. I was fairly brutal, so please point up any changes you disagree with. My main criteria was that if it was borderline and no-one had filled in the Description and/or Importance fields, it went. We must prioritize filling in these fields on the still-included entries! DanHobley ( talk) 15:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion in the proposal for deletion, what do people think of substituting the word "important" for something else? Suggestions in that discussion included "notable" (WP sensu stricto) and "influential". Both these are a bit less woolly than the current formulation, and may discourage future criticism. "Influential", of course, allows us to demonstrate influence by citations - though that may be less straightforward than it seems for the generally older references in this list. DanHobley ( talk) 08:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Mike Cline ( talk) has been creating a draft of WikiProject Bibliographies, a project that is very relevant to this page. Have a look! Also have a look at Bibliography of biology, formerly List of important publications in biology, which has been edited to conform with the policies of the wikiproject. Then consider the question: Should we move this page to Bibliography of geology? RockMagnetist ( talk) 23:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
A perennial issue on this and similar pages is how to set criteria for the list. I have carefully considered existing guidelines and tried to craft a broad set of policies that satisfy them. I have posted it on the Science pearls talk page. I would welcome your comments. Of course, these guidelines are not intended to be binding for any particular page, but might help you choose your own selection criteria. RockMagnetist ( talk) 00:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I've just expanded the list a little. Also, added a section on Geochronology. On that note, It's been nagging at me for a while that Archbishop Ussher's 4004BC estimate of the age of the Earth maybe deserves a place on this list. His estimate is certainly the first "serious", quantitative analysis of the age of the Earth. But equally, it's not really science!
Basically, I'm conflicted on this. I think it would be interesting to have on the page, but I also feel like somehow it's inappropriate. What does anyone else think? DanHobley ( talk) 23:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I am attempting to rescue this article by
Editors are welcome to help with either or both of these. The current state of the article is not final: I've commented out all of the list entries and am starting to bring them back one at a time if they match the criteria.
What I've done so far: I've scanned the list and brought back entries that are either subjects of their own stand-alone WP article, or are topics in an existing WP article. Simple mentions in a WP don't count. I've scanned the list as far as the "Structural Geology" section, but I have run out of time. I can do more editing in 12-24 hours.
Please feel free to continue to rescue individual list entries, or add new ones. Or please comment on or improve the list inclusion criteria. Let's try to rescue this article together! — hike395 ( talk) 15:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
To be included on this
stand-alone list, each entry should meet the following
list criteria:This list contains
notable publications in geology. A publication should appear in this list if
|
... is not a sub-discipline of geology and should not have a permanent place on this list as it is currently constructed. See [ [1]] for my statement on the placement of soil science among other peer disciplines. Similarly, climatology appears to be out of place on this list. Paleorthid 20:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
List of publications in biology was put up for deletion at AfD but survived the process as there was no consensus. However, as someone who has been concerned with this Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls project for some months now, I am concerned. There is indeed a case that the material here is not free of a POV. How do we determine importance? Earlier this year the participants on List of publications in chemistry debated this and decided on two matters. First, they tightened up the criteria for inclusion, in particular insisted that publications that were important as an introduction had to have had a wider importance such as altering the way all future text books were written or altered the way the subject was taught. Second, they decided that all new entries should be raised for debate over a 10 day period on the talk page to determine whether they should be kept or deleted. Most existing entries were debated and several were deleted. This has worked reasonably well although it would be better if more people had participated. It is clear enough that it is not, for these articles, sufficient to allow anyone to add entries, as only very obvious nonsense is likely to be deleted. Each entry needs the consideration of several editors. I urge all interested in this project to look at what the chemists here have done and consider whether something similar or even better can be used on all pages in the project. I am putting this paragraph on all the other talk pages of this project. -- Bduke 08:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is clearly a stub, but I'm too new to editing to figure out how to label it as such. Pete Tillman 03:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
In terms of its length it is not a stub, but I agree it is very incomplete as are many similar lists. The discussion above that I started earlier is very relevant. How do we ensure that entries to this article are not from POV pushers. I'm not a Geologist. I try to look after the similar article on Chemistry. There we debate all new entries. Every entry has to have a section on "Importance" and "Description" or it will be deleted. I think it more important to add new good entries and expand on the importance and description of current entries, then it is to make this a stub. -- Bduke 04:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine, discuss anything you want about it here. I'll keep it on my watch list. BTW, I see that User:APH who started off all these science pearl lists has not contributed to Wikidedia since January. We are on our own. -- Bduke 07:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls#Header template to all project list pages on rewording the template that generates the header to this list of publications to make the criteria for entries to the list rather tighter and better reflecting the notability criteria of WP. The motivation is to better take into account comments that have been made when some of these lists have been proposed for deletion. -- Bduke 00:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I propose deleting Thomas Gold's The Deep Hot Biosphere from the Petroleum Geology section. Gold's work isn't widely accepted in petroleum geology -- his abiogenic theory of petroleum genesis is now considered borderline crackpot. Comments? -- Pete Tillman 05:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC), Consulting Geologist
Please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls##Categories of important publications. Thanks, APH 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering. Peter W. Lipman's work is mainly about large volume volcanic eruptions in the Basin and Range Province. The publication cited is about St. Helen. He does not seem notable enough to have a biography. I think, if fourteen post-docs acknowledge him as a master, that's it. If the publication is acknowledged as a masterpiece, so must be the master who wrote it too and vice-e-versa. Nothing can be done about it? -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 07:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
citation}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Can we please define some specific criteria for notability? I can agree with the "Topic Creator", "Breakthrough", and "Influence" criteria. But I think having "Introduction" and "Latest and Greatest" is not helpful. It will only invite people to post their favorite textbook (such as S. Boggs' great, but not "important", stratigraphy book) or highly specialized papers that will need to be updated constantly. Also, most topic creators, breakthroughs and influential ideas are published in peer reviewed papers these days and books are only compilations of such works (note that this is the rule, but there are a few exceptions). I would like to propose that we discuss any further book additions (especially those published after 1975). Also, we should add more peer reviewed papers so we can give researchers the credit they deserve. Hamsterlopithecus ( talk) 19:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to note that the template at the top of the article applies to all these lists of publications. It should not be just discussed here. I agree about the recent change to remove textbooks but only if they have not had a massive influence on the way a subject is taught. I have altered the template to add that and this brings it into line with the criteria on the chemistry list, which has not been using the template. I will add the template there if the template changes settle down. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I went for it. Some restructuring, some pruning of dead wood, some new material where we were clearly lacking. Geochem remains a problem. I was fairly brutal, so please point up any changes you disagree with. My main criteria was that if it was borderline and no-one had filled in the Description and/or Importance fields, it went. We must prioritize filling in these fields on the still-included entries! DanHobley ( talk) 15:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion in the proposal for deletion, what do people think of substituting the word "important" for something else? Suggestions in that discussion included "notable" (WP sensu stricto) and "influential". Both these are a bit less woolly than the current formulation, and may discourage future criticism. "Influential", of course, allows us to demonstrate influence by citations - though that may be less straightforward than it seems for the generally older references in this list. DanHobley ( talk) 08:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Mike Cline ( talk) has been creating a draft of WikiProject Bibliographies, a project that is very relevant to this page. Have a look! Also have a look at Bibliography of biology, formerly List of important publications in biology, which has been edited to conform with the policies of the wikiproject. Then consider the question: Should we move this page to Bibliography of geology? RockMagnetist ( talk) 23:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
A perennial issue on this and similar pages is how to set criteria for the list. I have carefully considered existing guidelines and tried to craft a broad set of policies that satisfy them. I have posted it on the Science pearls talk page. I would welcome your comments. Of course, these guidelines are not intended to be binding for any particular page, but might help you choose your own selection criteria. RockMagnetist ( talk) 00:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I've just expanded the list a little. Also, added a section on Geochronology. On that note, It's been nagging at me for a while that Archbishop Ussher's 4004BC estimate of the age of the Earth maybe deserves a place on this list. His estimate is certainly the first "serious", quantitative analysis of the age of the Earth. But equally, it's not really science!
Basically, I'm conflicted on this. I think it would be interesting to have on the page, but I also feel like somehow it's inappropriate. What does anyone else think? DanHobley ( talk) 23:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I am attempting to rescue this article by
Editors are welcome to help with either or both of these. The current state of the article is not final: I've commented out all of the list entries and am starting to bring them back one at a time if they match the criteria.
What I've done so far: I've scanned the list and brought back entries that are either subjects of their own stand-alone WP article, or are topics in an existing WP article. Simple mentions in a WP don't count. I've scanned the list as far as the "Structural Geology" section, but I have run out of time. I can do more editing in 12-24 hours.
Please feel free to continue to rescue individual list entries, or add new ones. Or please comment on or improve the list inclusion criteria. Let's try to rescue this article together! — hike395 ( talk) 15:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)