Talk:List of important publications in geology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earth sciences Portal

List of important publications in geology is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

List

This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

1 Soil Science...
2 Standards in all the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls articles
3 Is this a stub
4 The criteria for entries
5 Proposals for deletion
6 Categories of important publications

[edit] Soil Science...

... 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)

I have no background in geology. I created the entries using the article about geology and I'm happy that you correct my errors. Are there any other entries that should be removed? Are there entries that should be added? Should we move soil science and climatology to a different list? It will be a shame if we won't have an entry for them. APH 07:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Standards in all the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls articles

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)

The potential for controversy here is huge. And geology (let alone the technical subdisciplines like igneous petrology) seems like a topic sufficiently under-represented in the ranks of Wikipedia editors to effectively discuss and come to a consensus on such a list. Although I am a geologist, I can't vouch for all subdisciplines (and I can't spend time every day on Wikipedia arguing with others about this stuff). My two cents: the Charles Lyell and G. K. Gilbert articles belong on the list, but I am automatically suspicious of anything published after about 1975. How do we have the historical hindsight to declare a paper or book published in 2000 as an "important paper", and not be so broad in our definition as to include ten-thousand other research papers and books?

It seems it would be better to find a list of important publications from a reputable outside source, such as the Geological Society of America or the American Association for the Advancement of Science, if such a list exists. That would take the wiki-controversy out of it. -- BlueCanoe 22:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems sensible, but do such things exist? I am of course a chemist and I can not think of anything produced by the Royal Society of Chemistry or the American Chemistry Society. If you find anything (or if I do) let us make sure it goes on the Science Pearls talk page so all disciplines can benefit. --Bduke 23:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a stub

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)

What article? The article for which this is its talk page, very clearly is not a stub. --Bduke 03:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, what else would you call it? The list is absurdly incomplete -- only two publications have more than author-title information. Pete Tillman 04:29, 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)

Thanks, and I agree. I am a geologist --perhaps I can adopt this page, as time permits. I'll take a look at your Chemistry list page for ideas (I started out as a chemist). Pete Tillman 06:41, 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)

[edit] The criteria for entries

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)

[edit] Proposals for deletion

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

Agree. Cheers Geologyguy 16:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Borderline crackpot, not of much use in actual oil exploration. Magoon's book on Petroleum Systems or something similar would be more appropriate. 202.185.73.68 04:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Iskandar Taib

Deleted. Why don't you add Magoon? TIA, Pete Tillman 04:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)