Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Scope
How big should a list of chemistry publications be? In other words, how notable is notable? I realise this is a perennial Wikipedia question, and one which changes as Wikipedia gets ever bigger. However for this one page, do you expect 10, 100, 1000 or 10,000 "notable" publications? "Notable" really depends on your perspective. If you were to go to a conference just on fluorine chemistry (as I have), the attendees could (I'm sure) come up with 50 "really notable, must-have" articles on fluorine chemistry. Multiply that by the number of specialist areas within chemistry (hundreds or even thousands) and you have a lot of references! With around 3 million chemistry papers published this century alone, we have a lot to choose from. Where should we draw the line? Walkerma 15:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that a list of 3 million papers won't fit in most browsers. I fluorine chemists say that there are 50 notable publication in their area, I'll take their word and would like to include all of them. Of course, Putting 50 publications in every sub area will cause the list to explode and will make it un usable. I think that currently we should include in the main list publications in fluorine chemistry that chemist that doesn't deal with this area will consider notable. The rest of the 50 publications should be added to a sub list - list of publications in fluorine chemistry.
- By the time wikipedia include an article for every publication we will use the category notable chemistry publication for the fluorine publications that appeared in the main list and the publications for the sub list will be marked only with the category notable fluorine chemistry publication. Do you agree with this approach? APH 06:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- PS.
- Shouldn’t we at least add a fluorine chemistry entry to the list of publication in chemistry ;-)?
-
- Some criteria for "notable" journal articles. Some journal articles are so important that they are reproduced in other formats besides the original. For example, the original Watson-Crick article on DNA structure has been reprinted in books and republished in other journals. Also, some journal articles form a major part of the basis for awarding a major science prize such as a Nobel prize. --JWSchmidt 14:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the comments. I didn't want to spend a long time researching things only to find someone saying, "that's not notable enough, we only want the top ten." You seem to share my view of Wikipedia, where it seems to be getting ever bigger anyway. I will try to start with what I think are the top twenty or so. Thanks, Walkerma 14:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reservations
I have serious reservations about this; you appear to propose a bunch of Wikipedians adding which books are kewl. At best, the mathematics pearls, for example, will do nothing that cannot be done by History of Mathematics, combined with a category for influential mathematical publications (possibly combined {{otherarticles}} or a special related template which will permit quick access from one seminal work to another).
These articles are inherently PoV - for example, if I were to edit, I would remove Hofstadter immediately, and someone would disagree - and necessarily incomplete. I will consider whether my disapproval extends to an AfD nomination, although these seem to be, like Earth itself, mostly harmless.
The usual solution to PoV problems might apply, to make this explicitly a collation of various mathematicians' reading lists; would this be an acceptable amendment? It would require much more work than the present approach. Septentrionalis 15:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- I totally agree with your analysis. As you can see in the objectivity section of the project, I also think that a list is subjective. I suggested some methods in order to reduce the level of subjectivity. As you can see in the project phases section, I also think that we should have articles on the publications and that the categories mechanism should be used to create the underneath structure. As you said, working on some list or even different articles will require more work. The lists exist for quite a while and still did not reach a satisfactory level. I am afraid that using other formats currently will harm the effort. The history of mathematics takes is similar to one aspect of the project but it cannot replace it. The history article should not include references and description of any paper, should get in depth of every sub area and will probably leave modern mathematics uncovered. Septentrionalis, since our views of the project are so close in spirit, I ask you again. Please, join us and make your contribution. Thanks, APH 07:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] List of publications in biology
List of publications in biology is currently up for deletion. --Salix alba (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
List of publications in biology survived the AfD 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 going to put this paragraph on all the talk pages of this project. --Bduke 08:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Delete this project?
List of publications in biology is up for deletion again. The arguments given for deletion to apply all the lists in this project. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology (2nd nomination). Kappa 08:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me that this time it will be deleted. I am not sure I care anymore. The warnings I made above back in April have been ignored. The articles remain open to individual POV. No other group has followed the chemists in debating new entries or suggested better alternatives. The instigator of this project is no longer active on Wikipedia. Interest in the Chemistry page is very thin. A "debate" with no partcipants is taking place right now on a new entry! Maybe they should all be deleted. --Bduke 11:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rename all articles
My pessimism above was not entirely well founded as the Biology article was kept. However it was renamed to List of important publications in biology, which all agreed better reflected what it was trying to do. The chemistry list has now been also renamed. I am going to be bold and rename all of the articles. --Bduke 00:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project Directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
- User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
- User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
- User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
- User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
- User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
- User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
- User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
- User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
