This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 2011-09-23. The result of the discussion was Delete. |
This is a stand-alone list that meets list notability criteria. Please only add items that meet the selection criteria established in the lead. |
Where are these lists drawn from? I am <again> going to point to the List of important operas as an example of how this should be correctly done. It was sent to the incubator to give it time for someone to find a Cite that has a "List of important <stuff>" which has not yet been done. The problem of WP:OR has not been solved. Until there is a Cite from where this List is drawn from, it is just a list of what good intentioned WP Editors 'feel' is important. Please send it back to the incubator. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I am making this list the first test case for the policies that Mike Cline ( talk) is developing in his draft of WikiProject Bibliographies. The first step is to rename the list to a Bibliography. The second is to rewrite the list in the recommended form and provide a lead section with unambiguous inclusion criteria. RockMagnetist ( talk) 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The move seems to have deleted the comments that were present on this talk page, including the tag referring to the previous AfD. -- Crusio ( talk) 07:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me note that I'm about to remove the Neuroscience section -- the two books listed are not even neuroscience books. This ought to ease the process of merging the material to other articles. Looie496 ( talk) 16:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The bibliography is now organized and formatted according to the guidelines in the draft of WikiProject Bibliographies. I have also added all the relevant publications I could find that have pages on Wikipedia. The next part is harder. There are several general references for the list as a whole and some of the sections, but I have only limited access to their contents so they have very few citations. Also, most of the annotations still do not have citations. I would appreciate some help with that. RockMagnetist ( talk) 22:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed something but up above somewhere is the statement that the article will "provide a lead section with unambiguous inclusion criteria". Surely this should be part of Phase 1? Granitethighs 23:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Curb, I'm puzzled by your latest edit. How does changing [[Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Academic and technical books|notable]] to [[notable]] satisfy WP:NSR? RockMagnetist ( talk) 16:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
There obviously was no consensus to move this page from list of important publications in biology.
Until consensus changes on the other pages, this page should not be alone as the only article of its kind to be named this way. Curb Chain ( talk) 03:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Bibliography of biology → List of important publications in biology – This is a procedural revert to the original title. It was unilaterally moved to this new title without consensus. Curb Chain ( talk) 23:49, 6 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) 00:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This is an rfc to establish consensus that the article List of important publications in biology should be deleted when it was recently restored from article incubation [1] without another deletion debate.
A separate article for a bibiolography may be appropriate, but turning a list of important publications into a bibliography was not done with process. This is to establish explicit and formal consensus that the community believes this should be an appropriate standalone case. Curb Chain ( talk) 02:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no essential difference between a list of publications and a bibliography, so there is no reason to have both List of important publications in biology and Bibliography of biology. The former has not been deleted as it it a redirect to the latter. Consensus is of course desirable and I think consensus will eventually be reached to move all the lists of publications in science to bibliographies. However, each list has existed as an island, without much central discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls, the parent Project, although it has recently become more active. That is now a task force of a new project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies. Time needs to be given for discussion on the talk pages of each of these lists and and these projects. Several editors, including myself, have suggested to Curb Chain that he slows down and some have suggested that he is being disruptive. I certainly do not see this RfC as being helpful at this time. -- Bduke (Discussion) 04:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
RfC comment: I think it should be done in reverse direction — the
Bibliography of biology should be merged into
List of important publications in biology and further redirected to it. Just for naming consistency and
WP:SPADE reasons. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk) 10:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bibliography of biology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The Fisher, Schrödinger and Pauling refs look dated and only marginally relevant. Post 2000 sources are badly needed for genetics (whatever that may be becoming...). Macdonald-ross ( talk) 11:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 2011-09-23. The result of the discussion was Delete. |
This is a stand-alone list that meets list notability criteria. Please only add items that meet the selection criteria established in the lead. |
Where are these lists drawn from? I am <again> going to point to the List of important operas as an example of how this should be correctly done. It was sent to the incubator to give it time for someone to find a Cite that has a "List of important <stuff>" which has not yet been done. The problem of WP:OR has not been solved. Until there is a Cite from where this List is drawn from, it is just a list of what good intentioned WP Editors 'feel' is important. Please send it back to the incubator. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I am making this list the first test case for the policies that Mike Cline ( talk) is developing in his draft of WikiProject Bibliographies. The first step is to rename the list to a Bibliography. The second is to rewrite the list in the recommended form and provide a lead section with unambiguous inclusion criteria. RockMagnetist ( talk) 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The move seems to have deleted the comments that were present on this talk page, including the tag referring to the previous AfD. -- Crusio ( talk) 07:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me note that I'm about to remove the Neuroscience section -- the two books listed are not even neuroscience books. This ought to ease the process of merging the material to other articles. Looie496 ( talk) 16:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The bibliography is now organized and formatted according to the guidelines in the draft of WikiProject Bibliographies. I have also added all the relevant publications I could find that have pages on Wikipedia. The next part is harder. There are several general references for the list as a whole and some of the sections, but I have only limited access to their contents so they have very few citations. Also, most of the annotations still do not have citations. I would appreciate some help with that. RockMagnetist ( talk) 22:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed something but up above somewhere is the statement that the article will "provide a lead section with unambiguous inclusion criteria". Surely this should be part of Phase 1? Granitethighs 23:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Curb, I'm puzzled by your latest edit. How does changing [[Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Academic and technical books|notable]] to [[notable]] satisfy WP:NSR? RockMagnetist ( talk) 16:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
There obviously was no consensus to move this page from list of important publications in biology.
Until consensus changes on the other pages, this page should not be alone as the only article of its kind to be named this way. Curb Chain ( talk) 03:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Bibliography of biology → List of important publications in biology – This is a procedural revert to the original title. It was unilaterally moved to this new title without consensus. Curb Chain ( talk) 23:49, 6 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) 00:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This is an rfc to establish consensus that the article List of important publications in biology should be deleted when it was recently restored from article incubation [1] without another deletion debate.
A separate article for a bibiolography may be appropriate, but turning a list of important publications into a bibliography was not done with process. This is to establish explicit and formal consensus that the community believes this should be an appropriate standalone case. Curb Chain ( talk) 02:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no essential difference between a list of publications and a bibliography, so there is no reason to have both List of important publications in biology and Bibliography of biology. The former has not been deleted as it it a redirect to the latter. Consensus is of course desirable and I think consensus will eventually be reached to move all the lists of publications in science to bibliographies. However, each list has existed as an island, without much central discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls, the parent Project, although it has recently become more active. That is now a task force of a new project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies. Time needs to be given for discussion on the talk pages of each of these lists and and these projects. Several editors, including myself, have suggested to Curb Chain that he slows down and some have suggested that he is being disruptive. I certainly do not see this RfC as being helpful at this time. -- Bduke (Discussion) 04:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
RfC comment: I think it should be done in reverse direction — the
Bibliography of biology should be merged into
List of important publications in biology and further redirected to it. Just for naming consistency and
WP:SPADE reasons. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk) 10:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bibliography of biology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The Fisher, Schrödinger and Pauling refs look dated and only marginally relevant. Post 2000 sources are badly needed for genetics (whatever that may be becoming...). Macdonald-ross ( talk) 11:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)