![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 September 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following self-references were removed from the article: some may be worth transferring back in HTML comments.
-- cut here ---
Scientific disciplines often are not defined by their books but, rather, are reflected by them: A book is an author's or editor's sense of what is important in one subdiscipline, or an entire field, at one particular moment — within the constraints of whatever limitations have been placed on content, typically as by the publisher. Important limitations include such things as space, color plates, merit, etc. With the advent of the World Wide Web, many of these old limits no longer exist, though potentially at the cost of permanence. An author (or authors) today (as of September, 2006) can write anything they want, and reach a wide audience. But they will stay in "print" only so long as their web host stays in business and/or appropriate fees are paid. Wikipedia suggests a compromise, where, contrasting to one's own web page, content, in principle, may last "forever". Of course "forever" will be in a mutable form, but that also means that both error correction and updating are possible. Indeed, are encouraged!
Within this context, this article consists of a list of phage monographs (as loosely defined) dating back to 1921 ( phage are viruses of bacteria). The list was created — because of the space limitations of traditional print — during the writing of the first chapter of the edited monograph Bacteriophage Ecology [1] and in order to be cited by that chapter. A forerunner of this list can be found in the 1 January 2005 issue [2] of the Bacteriophage Ecology Group News, an online newsletter of the Bacteriophage Ecology Group. See phage ecology for more on that subdiscipline of phage biology and ecology.
An approximation of ASM ( American Society for Microbiology) conventions are used throughout. Titles (or English translations) have been presented in bold to allow for rapid scanning, and italics have been avoided both to improve readability and as consistent with ASM conventions. OCLC refers to a monograph's WorldCat accession number. ASIN is the Amazon Standard Identification Number (shown if ISBN is not known).
Help with cyrillic lettering, transliterations, translations, missing information, uncited monographs, etc. is much appreciated. Please contact Dr. Stephen T. Abedon (through www.phage.org) with suggested changes or, of course, feel free to make changes (including updating) as appropriate.
--- ends ---
References
Burnet wrote a chapter on phage for the Medical Research Council's "System of Bacteriology" (around 1928). Is this relevant?-- Peta 23:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that all phage-associated material should be archived in a manner that is as readily available to all individuals as possible. However, the Phage monographs list should be limited to volumes which are somewhat or fully dedicated to aspects of phage biology. Therefore, a monograph containing a single chapter on phages is without question relevant but at the same time does not qualify the so-containing monograph for this list. Thanks! Sabedon ( talk) 18:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The books written by notable authors with WP articles can be appropriately listed as part of these articles. I have just oved the listings for d'Herelle and Stent, though they need some further formatting. DGG ( talk) 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that books written by notable authors should/could also be placed on the appropriate WP pages, just so long as the Phage monographs list remains intact (that is, just so long as the Phage monographs list survives me as a complete listing of phage and phage-related monographs). Sabedon ( talk) 18:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The deletion discussion for this article closed with no consensus. The closing administrator, Sandstein, stated that there was "no consensus to just delete this page outright, but all agree that this content should not remain in article space in this form." Sandstein furthermore suggested that "interested editors continue to develop ideas about what to do with this type of content in general" on an RfC. This is what I am initiating. The deletion discussion ended with the last four contributors to the discussion in favour of the creation of a bibliography space. Such a step obviously goes beyond the scope of this one particular article. There are a few bibliography articles in existence and no one seems to be arguing in favour of leaving them as they are. I do believe that the creation of a bibliography space would be a positive step for Wikipedia and welcome further discussion on the subject. Neelix ( talk) 14:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Neelix for calling me! I think adding bibliographies in a consistent manner would be a wonderful asset for WP. I think in most cases it could be simply solved, without even passing through RfC: a simple show-on-click template in the opportune pages would be enough in many cases. Separate pages could be useful for particularly complex cases, where a same bibliography can be called by more articles? -- Cyclopia - talk 15:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
An encyclopedia should contain this sort of information. Encyclopedias usually have contained this sort of information in the past--it's clearly valuable to the reader. There are two questions: First, Should it be a selected bibliography, or should it be complete, within reasonable limitations. (The present article was attempting to be complete, including some quite minor material & this was part of the problem with it. ) Second, how to organize it.
I think we should probably move towards one or the other, but perhaps it would be better now to concentrate on suitable articles.
As for this particular article, an interim solution is to take some of the series and write separate articles for them--many key series in molecular biology are independently notable. A few of the books probably are also. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I think bibliographies such as this are a great idea. Their value increases the more they are inclusive of relevant sources, and the better they are organized, preferably by multiple/sortable criteria. I think Wikipedia is more than capable of handling these internally rather than scuttling them off to WikiBooks or elsewhere. They should not be lumped in with articles, because they are not articles, they are aids to writing and expanding articles. DGG's suggestion to make them subpages is probably the most sensible; this particular article would then be moved to Bacteriophage/Bibliography, and then a link to that subpage should then appear in the Bacteriophage article itself, perhaps under a further reading section. I really don't see any drawbacks to this; how would subpages be problematic? Postdlf ( talk) 21:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Bibliographies of works whose inclusion criteria is authorship by certain people/organizations (e.g. Bibliography of Ayn Rand) are fine. It is extremely and objectively clear what belongs and what does not. But bibliographies of books merely about or related to a topic are problematic for several reasons:
Wikipedia is not the Dewey Decimal System, it's not here to list books by topic. Non-authorial bibliographies are not appropriate. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It's been nearly two full days since there has been any development in this discussion. I believe that the issue of bibliography articles is an important one to resolve, so I don't want this to end with a declaration of no concensus like the AfD discussion. A lot has been said, but I don't think a reviewing administrator is going to get a clear sense of what the prevailing impressions are about what should be done. For this reason, I'm asking that people make their stances explicit; I don't want this issue to fade into limbo. Here are the options that have been put forward:
For visibility, it might be best to start comments in support of one of the above options with one of the following corresponding breviations: Keep all, Move to sub, Move to space, Move to sister, or Delete. Of course, feel free to make alternate suggestions if I have left out any possible options. Neelix ( talk) 17:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I've refactored Neelix' above post from 17:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC) in order to start off individual entry subsections below. LeadSongDog come howl 18:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Some lists of books have been added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You can find the discussions here. RockMagnetist ( talk) 22:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 September 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following self-references were removed from the article: some may be worth transferring back in HTML comments.
-- cut here ---
Scientific disciplines often are not defined by their books but, rather, are reflected by them: A book is an author's or editor's sense of what is important in one subdiscipline, or an entire field, at one particular moment — within the constraints of whatever limitations have been placed on content, typically as by the publisher. Important limitations include such things as space, color plates, merit, etc. With the advent of the World Wide Web, many of these old limits no longer exist, though potentially at the cost of permanence. An author (or authors) today (as of September, 2006) can write anything they want, and reach a wide audience. But they will stay in "print" only so long as their web host stays in business and/or appropriate fees are paid. Wikipedia suggests a compromise, where, contrasting to one's own web page, content, in principle, may last "forever". Of course "forever" will be in a mutable form, but that also means that both error correction and updating are possible. Indeed, are encouraged!
Within this context, this article consists of a list of phage monographs (as loosely defined) dating back to 1921 ( phage are viruses of bacteria). The list was created — because of the space limitations of traditional print — during the writing of the first chapter of the edited monograph Bacteriophage Ecology [1] and in order to be cited by that chapter. A forerunner of this list can be found in the 1 January 2005 issue [2] of the Bacteriophage Ecology Group News, an online newsletter of the Bacteriophage Ecology Group. See phage ecology for more on that subdiscipline of phage biology and ecology.
An approximation of ASM ( American Society for Microbiology) conventions are used throughout. Titles (or English translations) have been presented in bold to allow for rapid scanning, and italics have been avoided both to improve readability and as consistent with ASM conventions. OCLC refers to a monograph's WorldCat accession number. ASIN is the Amazon Standard Identification Number (shown if ISBN is not known).
Help with cyrillic lettering, transliterations, translations, missing information, uncited monographs, etc. is much appreciated. Please contact Dr. Stephen T. Abedon (through www.phage.org) with suggested changes or, of course, feel free to make changes (including updating) as appropriate.
--- ends ---
References
Burnet wrote a chapter on phage for the Medical Research Council's "System of Bacteriology" (around 1928). Is this relevant?-- Peta 23:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that all phage-associated material should be archived in a manner that is as readily available to all individuals as possible. However, the Phage monographs list should be limited to volumes which are somewhat or fully dedicated to aspects of phage biology. Therefore, a monograph containing a single chapter on phages is without question relevant but at the same time does not qualify the so-containing monograph for this list. Thanks! Sabedon ( talk) 18:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The books written by notable authors with WP articles can be appropriately listed as part of these articles. I have just oved the listings for d'Herelle and Stent, though they need some further formatting. DGG ( talk) 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that books written by notable authors should/could also be placed on the appropriate WP pages, just so long as the Phage monographs list remains intact (that is, just so long as the Phage monographs list survives me as a complete listing of phage and phage-related monographs). Sabedon ( talk) 18:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The deletion discussion for this article closed with no consensus. The closing administrator, Sandstein, stated that there was "no consensus to just delete this page outright, but all agree that this content should not remain in article space in this form." Sandstein furthermore suggested that "interested editors continue to develop ideas about what to do with this type of content in general" on an RfC. This is what I am initiating. The deletion discussion ended with the last four contributors to the discussion in favour of the creation of a bibliography space. Such a step obviously goes beyond the scope of this one particular article. There are a few bibliography articles in existence and no one seems to be arguing in favour of leaving them as they are. I do believe that the creation of a bibliography space would be a positive step for Wikipedia and welcome further discussion on the subject. Neelix ( talk) 14:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Neelix for calling me! I think adding bibliographies in a consistent manner would be a wonderful asset for WP. I think in most cases it could be simply solved, without even passing through RfC: a simple show-on-click template in the opportune pages would be enough in many cases. Separate pages could be useful for particularly complex cases, where a same bibliography can be called by more articles? -- Cyclopia - talk 15:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
An encyclopedia should contain this sort of information. Encyclopedias usually have contained this sort of information in the past--it's clearly valuable to the reader. There are two questions: First, Should it be a selected bibliography, or should it be complete, within reasonable limitations. (The present article was attempting to be complete, including some quite minor material & this was part of the problem with it. ) Second, how to organize it.
I think we should probably move towards one or the other, but perhaps it would be better now to concentrate on suitable articles.
As for this particular article, an interim solution is to take some of the series and write separate articles for them--many key series in molecular biology are independently notable. A few of the books probably are also. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I think bibliographies such as this are a great idea. Their value increases the more they are inclusive of relevant sources, and the better they are organized, preferably by multiple/sortable criteria. I think Wikipedia is more than capable of handling these internally rather than scuttling them off to WikiBooks or elsewhere. They should not be lumped in with articles, because they are not articles, they are aids to writing and expanding articles. DGG's suggestion to make them subpages is probably the most sensible; this particular article would then be moved to Bacteriophage/Bibliography, and then a link to that subpage should then appear in the Bacteriophage article itself, perhaps under a further reading section. I really don't see any drawbacks to this; how would subpages be problematic? Postdlf ( talk) 21:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Bibliographies of works whose inclusion criteria is authorship by certain people/organizations (e.g. Bibliography of Ayn Rand) are fine. It is extremely and objectively clear what belongs and what does not. But bibliographies of books merely about or related to a topic are problematic for several reasons:
Wikipedia is not the Dewey Decimal System, it's not here to list books by topic. Non-authorial bibliographies are not appropriate. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It's been nearly two full days since there has been any development in this discussion. I believe that the issue of bibliography articles is an important one to resolve, so I don't want this to end with a declaration of no concensus like the AfD discussion. A lot has been said, but I don't think a reviewing administrator is going to get a clear sense of what the prevailing impressions are about what should be done. For this reason, I'm asking that people make their stances explicit; I don't want this issue to fade into limbo. Here are the options that have been put forward:
For visibility, it might be best to start comments in support of one of the above options with one of the following corresponding breviations: Keep all, Move to sub, Move to space, Move to sister, or Delete. Of course, feel free to make alternate suggestions if I have left out any possible options. Neelix ( talk) 17:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I've refactored Neelix' above post from 17:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC) in order to start off individual entry subsections below. LeadSongDog come howl 18:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Some lists of books have been added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You can find the discussions here. RockMagnetist ( talk) 22:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)