Talk:Phage monographs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Chapters

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)

[edit] where this goes

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)

To put my card on the table, I consider that WP is not intended as a bibliography. I am moving the items to more appropriate pages in preparation to asking for the deletion of this page, and the similar pages. I do not think there is any case where article such as this have been challenged at AfD, and kept. You have a perfectly good university website for them. I agree that they are intrinsically not suited for permanent publication, so if you want a more stable place, there are several other alternatives with the sister projects: Wikibooks, primarily, though I think they would go better there with some degree of annotation. Or Wikiversity, where you could easily do an appropriate "module" as they call it there.

I & others have in the past suggested a project called "Wikidata" , and there could perfectly well be a dedicated one called something like "Wikibibliography". The problem is that the Foundation (quite reasonably) considers itself over-extended, and absolutely not able to support new projects--there is serious question about the funding for all the existing ones.

I discuss this here now instead of simply going ahead with the nomination for deletion to provide an opportunity for discussion. I don;t intend to be prematurely dogmatic. DGG (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)