Talk:Bibliography of biology

Where ???

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)

Are you really saying that if there are references for classic papers/landmark papers/etc. in microbiology, cell biology, genetics, yeast biology and bacterial viruses, that is not enough to establish the notability of important publications in all of biology? Moreover, every one of the publications has its own Wikipedia article. Consistent with the recent AfD discussions of similar lists, there are no longer any grounds for WP:OR or WP:NPOV, so I am going to delete the multiple issues template (the cleanup tag is too vague to be useful). RockMagnetist (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If a Cite says "Book X is important" then that Cite belongs on the Article about Book X. A List of important <stuff> needs to come from somewhere, other than a WP Editors opinion, to say that these books are the important ones. Otherwise, in 6 months after a whole lot of well intentioned WP Editors have added their favorite book to this WP:COATRACK, we are going to end up in the same place we were 3 weeks ago. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 09:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. There must be thousands of papers/books where somebody somewhere once said "landmark paper" or something like that. And for many papers/books I still don't see a justification for inclusion, which remains haphazard, eclectic, and arbitrary. Gray's Anatomy? Please... Didn't introduce anything new and was influential in the English-speaking part of the world. With all its undeniable qualities, that one didn't change biology as we know it... --Crusio (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This comment applies to all the other "important" lists. There's no point in singling this one out.Curb Chain (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This issue has been argued to death, and we should all go away and do something constructive. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• WIth all respect for the efforts that have gone into this resurrection, to me this is still a clear G4. --Crusio (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

References provided. I don't see what has not been addressed. I would contest that speedy deletion. If you want it deleted you can submit to afd.Curb Chain (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A Qualified list cannot be created by WP Editors, only a reliable secondary source can do that. Its obvious you have not actually looked at how List of important operas backs itself up. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Move of pages

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)

disappearing talk page

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)

I'll try and get this fixed today. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Neuroscience

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)

Instead of removing it, could you find the proper home for those books? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Phase 1 completed

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)

So phase 2 entails providing citations to prove that an entry is important?Curb Chain (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the annotations aren't needed for the entries that have their own articles; but if an annotation is added, it needs a citation. Some of the annotations could probably be dispensed with. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Curb, you'll note that the criteria important has been removed from both the title and lead. What we are looking for here is relevancy to the subject of biology and its sub-disciplines. Literature that is widely cited in published biology related biblographies, reviews and such are relevant. If there is not a WP article on a given piece of literature, then I would fully expect that entry to cite a source demonstrating its relevancy to biology or a sub-discipline. Annotations are a powerful method to demonstrate relevancy and should be encouraged if they can be supported by sources. Remember we are writing this WP article so that readers interested in biology can learn about the literature on the subject. My gut tells me, that this list is but 25% or less complete, but its a good start as a WP:Summary Style article. Don't fear the odd entry that someone might add that isn't really relevant and isn't sourced well, it won't last long.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Rock - Great job so far, more work to do, but I like how you are pulling this together. Most of my recent edits here have been to provide examples and you've taken the bait nicely. I am going to leave you to it, but remember to tap those other sources of information. Google is not necessarily reliable source nirvana. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So do you plan to dispense with "important" with the rest of the "important" articles such as the ones listed at List of important publications in science?Curb Chain (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Curb, I think that tranforming these into Bibliographies where relevancy to a topic is easily established through published bibliographies, reviews and such is the way to deal with the subjectiveness of a word like important. A list of publications, regardless of inclusion criteria, is a Bibliography by any other name and I am hoping we can garner sufficient support for the WikiProject Bibliography to transform all such lists into good, encyclopedic bibliographies. I am hoping you will join us in that effort.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So, eventually, all such articles will be renamed?Curb Chain (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, assuming other contributors don't object. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I admire all the effort that RockMagnetist is putting into this and would only wish that he'd spend that energy to a better goal. I still think that this list is bound to remain something eclectic and arbitrary and will be contentious for years to come. Nevertheless, let me offer a tiny point of advice to improve it a little bit: Fisher's 1918 paper is a landmark paper in genetics, not evolutionary biology. Fisher unified the views of the "Mendelians" and "Biometricians", showing that polygenic inheritance could account for the inheritance of continuously distributed characters (studied by the Biometricians and as opposed to the discrete characters studied by the Mendelians). --Crusio (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Another inconsistency: Species Plantarum is listed under botany, but Systema Naturae goes under taxonomy, not zoology (I would put both under taxonomy). --Crusio (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions. I must admit that I haven't really spent much time thinking about the entries or where they belong. Most of them were there before I started. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

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)

I'm going to try applying the notability criteria for academic and technical books (see my latest edit) and see how that goes. The same criteria would apply to articles in a journal. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How is this WP:NSR?

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)

Curb's right. In simple terms, we don't wikilink to WP guidelines, projects or essays inside a WP article. A link to notable is not really necessary. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Revert The Move Of This Page

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)

There doesn't have to be agreement across all the pages! Please leave this page alone, unless you are adding content.RockMagnetist (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• Oppose Current title is the correct title for an article that was resurrected from deletion by another editor and brought into compliance with WP guidelines based on advice in WikiProject Bibliographies. Curb Chain is being very WP:Pointy about this after losing several deletion discussions and being chastised by other editors for at least ten unilateral and undiscussed moves on his part. Curb Chain even voted to delete this article when the title contained the word important because important could not be adequately defined, but now when that issue has been corrected, he wants important back in the title. Very WP:POINTY --Mike Cline (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering this was not raised by an WP:RFC or mentioned to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology as suggested by an editor on Talk:List of important publications in physics this is an uncontraversial move back to the original title.

If you feel that a bibliography of biology is acceptable, that can be a separate article, but having a separate List of important publications in biology is perfectly acceptable as well.Curb Chain (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: obviously, this is a controversial move, since two editors are now opposing it. You should not have renamed these lists to bibliographies without discussion, but having renamed them, you should have left them alone unless someone actually objected. So far, the only rename that has met with any comment at all is the physics list, so all these reverts are merely causing more disruption. There is no need for consistency between the names, no need for a mass renaming, and therefore no need for an WP:RFC. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This was probably bad form to turn the original article List of important publications in biology into Bibliography of biology. If you felt that the information at the original article should be incorporated into the new article/title, you should have proposed a split, which was not done.

I was the one who moved those pages. A selfrevert is totally appropriate, and I object to the name "Bibliography of..." if not all these pages are named such.Curb Chain (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The most important for not renaming this bibliography: I have rebuilt this list as an example of what we are trying to achieve with WikiProject Bibliographies, and I am holding it up as an example for editors of other lists. By renaming it, you would be undermining my efforts to improve bibliographies. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You should have started a Bibliography article from scratch. Reverting this back to the original title is uncontroversial. Retaining the information before the rename should be uncontroversial as well.Curb Chain (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You have a strange notion of the meaning of "uncontroversial". RockMagnetist (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's see. A unilateral move is uncontroversial on this page, but when I asked you if all the other pages would be moved to the new name, and when I did, it, it's controversial?Curb Chain (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - its just easier this way. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is the better title. Also, since a split is being mentioned above, there is no reason to split this into two such articles. That makes no sense at all. LadyofShalott 03:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed selection criteria

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)

RfC: Should List of important publications in biology be redirected to Bibliography of biology?

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)

I don't understand what's being requested here. Are you saying the article should be renamed? or that it should be deleted? In the former case, the requested move has already been declined. In the latter case, a deletion request surely needs to go through the usual AfD process, unless you think it's a candidate for speedy deletion. Could you please spell out exactly what you're asking for? Jowa fan (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User:RockMagnetist made an unilateral move without discussion. Apparently, [2] User:Mike Cline fixed this move.

For comparision: In a discussion regarding a move to "Bibilography" on "List of important publications in physics" an editor opined: "If you're proposing modifying this list, then in addition to having a thread here, start a thread at WT:PHYS pointing to this discussion. If you're proposing modifying many such lists, start an RFC, as I've already suggested."

I agree that such discussion should be started before such little disucsion has taken place. If I did not make that position before, I feel that consistency is important, so I believe that this article should go through dialogue-consensus instead of editing editing actions.

Another editor states: "My point is that the naming preferences of a new project are not on their own enough to override the existing consensus that this page is appropriate." (User:CBM/Talk:List of important publications in mathematics#Move)

I am simply asking for consensus because I believe consistency should be considered.Curb Chain (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Curb, you still haven't answered Jowa fan (talk)'s question. What action are you requesting? RockMagnetist (talk) 05:01, 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)

I have made an ANI request to terminate this discussion early. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

According to RockMagnetist, he is using Bibliography of biology as a test case. What this means escapes me, as it was clear that the other series of articles where not to be renamed. When asked if all such pages (in the series) would be renamed he answered yes.

Being bold, I used the same boldness to move the other pages, as I felt sooner or later the pages would be moved. As there was/is no consensus at the time to have the series renamed to the bibliography suffix, I see no reason for a blanking of List of important publications in biology and redirect-to-Bibliography of biology.Curb Chain (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't clearly stated what action you are requesting. If we don't know what the question is, how can we vote on it? RockMagnetist (talk) 07:14, 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)

That would be equivalent to the requested move that was just rejected. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would reopen it as an RfC request is now in action. Still, there should be at least several RfC and local editors who think it would be a good idea to actually reopen the move discussion. RfC is open for a couple of days, so let's wait. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Reopening a request mere days after it was rejected would be grounds for a speedy close. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Taking in consideration that the WikiProject Bibliographies is working on this, I withdraw all my comments. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040608113114/http://www.bio.txstate.edu/~wetlands/Glossary/glossary.html to http://www.bio.txstate.edu/~wetlands/Glossary/glossary.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727182113/http://community.weber.edu/sciencemuseum/pages/life_main.asp to http://community.weber.edu/sciencemuseum/pages/life_main.asp

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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)