Talk:List of important publications in biology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 16/4/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 Sept, 2006. The result of the discussion was move.

Contents 1 anthropology 2 categories 3 Biogeography 4 Ecology 4.1 Walden 5 Delete this page 6 moved 3 books to right section 6.1 Thinking 7 removed: 8 Forgacs 9 Molecular Biology of the Cell 9.1 Molecular Biology of the Cell 10 The criteria for entries 11 Categories of important publications

[edit] anthropology

I arrived at this page from Anthropology - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology, was suppose to link to important publications in anthropology. I'd fix it, but I'm new to this wiki stuff, not sure how. or where the correct page is, or if that is overstepping bounds. Thanks

There is no page on List of publications in anthropology, so I will delete that link on Anthropology. Please sign and date your contributions using ~~~~. --Bduke 23:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] categories

Why are there are these random categories that have no books associated with them? Since breaking the science into categories like this is subjective, all of the minor subjects (arachnology, but no protozoology?) should be removed unless a book comes along that is important in the larger scope of biology. Does anyone agree?

Safay 03:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Safay,

I created the categories by looking in the categories in the page on biology.

I have no proper background and therefore I made these mistakes.

I'll be very happy if you'll be able to rearrange the categories.

please note the there is a link for tope topics (arachnology) to the section in the list.

APH 08:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if my tone was grating... thanks for explaining. I think this page is has really cool potential; that's probably where my frustration came from. I think reading lists are great, and the idea of reading lists on Wikipedia is wonderful. If more people visited here and contributed, it would be better rounded out. How can we promote it?

Safay 03:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I wish I knew how to promote it ;-)

I think that even if we will get a small number of people with a proper background interested, the list (in the various topics) will become quite good.

I tried asking people outside wikipedia I know but most of them weren't interested.

Do you know wikipedian that will be interested in the list?

Are there "interest groups" of wikipedians in which the list can be introduced?

APH 06:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Try raising it at the WP:TOL Talk page - MPF 11:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I think the potential of this page is limited by the fact that it tries to be too much. Currently, it looks like people are just using this page as a vanity page to publicise their own research. The one entry for psychophysics is not particularly important or significant and many important psychophysical papers are already outlined on other pages dedicated to the particular subject topic. This page is trying to be an encyclopedia within and encyclopedia! Sorry.

Famousdog 13:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biogeography

The references below were removed from the list. The list should be a list of publications and not a list of list. Anyone with a background in biogeography is welcomed to use these references in order to add new publications to the entry. APH 10:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

see Charles H. Smith Home Pages:

Early Classics in Biogeography, Distribution, and Diversity Studies: To 1950 [1]

Early Classics in Biogeography, Distribution, and Diversity Studies: 1951 to 1975 [2]

[edit] Ecology

I have removed this entry from the ecology section for now because it appears to be about environmentalism not ecology, can anybody confirm?

[edit] Walden

• Henry David Thoreau
• 1854
• Walden

Description: This book is based on the author two years of living near lake Walden. Thoreau summarizes in the book his observations and offers information about the history of nature investigation. Thoreau offers a unique attitude to nature preservation.

Importance: Impact

I don't know this publication and I never read it. However, I added this publication after a very warm recommendation from a biologist who is familiar with it. This biologist is the one that categorized the publication in ecology. Please return the publication to its place. Thanks, APH 08:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete this page

I don't think this list is going to stand up to scrutiny.. to start with, it's unsourceable. Second, people will always disagree on what is "important". Thirdly, who knows what will happen in the future which will change our impression of which papers are important. If there is no comment, I will AfD this.. it is interestng but unwikipedian. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Zargulon 17:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it survived with no consensus. However, much of what Zargulon says is correct. How do you ensure that the choice is NPOV? This question was addressed by the chemists for List of publications in chemistry. Tighter guidelines were agreed after some debate and every new entry is subjected to debate about whether it should be retained or deleted. The only problem is too few people participate, but it is a start. You might also think about breaking this article into sub-divisions of Biology. It would be quite large if some of the sections, currently vacant, were filled. Breaking it up might mean that more experts in the various areas of biology participated. If it is not improved, I imagine it will be put up for deletion again. --Bduke 05:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

For one the list could do with a prue. There are a lot of publications in their which do not attempt to establish importance. --Salix alba (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added the following to all the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls article talk pages:-

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 08:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that this page should be deleted. Apart from POV issues, it is impractical and pretty much a complete encyclopedia in itself. I am a practicing biologist. If anyone takes a look at Medline one will get an idea at the sheer volume of text being published in fields of biology today. I can hardly keep up with the 20-30 odd textbooks in my sub-specialization while teaching. How does inclusion of one or two (not necessarily better) not serve as advertising for that specific publication? Antorjal 23:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is possible to go further than they have on the equivalent chemistry page, and include only publications that have merited an article for an author, the main theory purported or the book itself i.e Darwin's origin of species would count on all three, some of the others on this page would count on two counts as well. I still think this is an important page, even if it doesn't conform to usual Wiki policy, although I think with my suggestion, it just might. I think I might make this suggestion on the List of publications in chemistry page as well. Terri G 13:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC) I've had another thought, we could get references that talk about science references in these sort of terms or even reviews in journals and newspapers. Terri G 14:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above two comments. The material should be dispersed among the relevant articles. I parallel what I have just said about the Chemistry list: This list is a combination of a list of historically important publications, (now useless as biology, but important for a biologist to know about), which would normally be listed under the history of biochemistry or the history of special fields, classic textbooks that all biologists remember (if old enough, and thus the textbooks that one wants to include depends on one's age), current reviews that give the best general definition of the status of a field (either books or review articles, and they change rapidly), and the latest work--which is more appropriate for Google Scholar than here. I know of no one, except a few librarians, who consider themselves compentent in all the fields of biology; unless one is studying the history of biology specifically, one is studying one of the major fields, and only those books are relevant. This is a useful list nonetheless-- for division among the different subjects to make sure all the key books are included. I call attention to Resources for College Libraries, the successor to Books for College Libraries. It already has an article, Resources for College Libraries (RCL) Now it's being released, I'd gladly update it except that I was science editor for the new RCL, and Chemistry editor for the former BCL and one isn't suppposed to write about one's own project --though many Wikipedians do. DGG 01:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)DGG 03:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moved 3 books to right section

I have moved

• Systema Naturae from zoology to taxonomy.
• The natural history of Selborne from taxonomy to zoology
• Fabre, also from tax. to zool.

The sections are adjacent, which I think is why they got mixed up. C onsidering the likely interest, I'll look out for more books about specific groups of animals. DGG 02:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thinking

Is this how I add my thoughts on "Publications in biology". There could be a complete list of all publications! A big job unnecessary? Think deviding into Botany, Zoology, Biography, Genegral-Biology, is best. But then I'm old-fashioned.Osborne 16:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't seem to be big enough yet. Add some more good books, and we'll get there. DGG 18:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You might like to check the page history. I deleted a lot of entries a few weeks ago. Some were drek other might be worthy of inclusion if the importance of the works can be established. --Salix alba (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed:

Limnology, book by Rorel, Léman..." articles by Lebedev, Werner special issue ed. by Sakar

I continue to delete items without stated importance, please do not add them back unless you can say why. I don't think just "introduction" is enough reason--there are dozens of introductions. I notice many of the books were published in 2002 and 2003, and I therefore wonder just a bit about the relative importance of all of them, as compared to books published earlier or later. If we have this article, let it be worth-while. DGG 04:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forgacs

Is there any data of the actual notability of this new book?DGG 05:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Molecular Biology of the Cell

This entriy smells like advertising. Since when is being an introduction a proper claim of importance? The term "must-have" in the description also doesn't really sound all that neutral. 213.54.171.83 20:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Molecular Biology of the Cell

• Alberts, Bruce; Johnson, Alexander; Lewis, Julian; Raff, Martin; Roberts, Keith; Walter, Peter
• New York, Garland Publishing
• 1983-2002

Description: . This is a must-have introduction to cell biology, suitable for both undergraduates as well as for graduate students. The book covers a wide range of concepts, spanning from the internal organization of cells and molecular genetics - to cellular functions in the larger context of the organism. For beginners, it serves as an excellent introduction to the field of cell and molecular biology. Graduate students and post-graduates may furthermore use this book for refreshing their memory on basic biological principles. Online version.

Importance: Introduction.

I have moved the entry here until the concerns above have been covered. It reads like a copyvio from a publishers blurb. As for "introduction" being a claim for importance, it is in the criteria at the top of the page. Perhaps it should not be and altered along the lines of the way the chemists have altered the importance criteria on their publications list. --Bduke 21:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited to answer your concerns--it was merely poorly worded, not advertising, it's the std into textbook--has been ever since 1st ed,

and the relevant criterion from the top of the page is "Introduction – A publication that is a good introduction or survey of a topic" DGG 22:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC) DGG 22:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, it looks good now. However my general point is that the "Introduction" criteria in all the Science pearls pages is too weak. There are hundreds of books that give an introduction. Just being an introduction is not in itself notable. On the chemistry page, we effectively modified this to be:-

'Books where the justification for inclusion is Introduction are particularly prone to being added not from a NPOV. The criteria above for publications that are regarded as important because of Introduction should be interpreted as "A publication that is a good introduction or survey of a topic and that has also made a significant impact on the discipline such as in the way it is taught, or perhaps in other ways."'

I keep stressing this and believe it is part of the reason why these pages keep being put to AfD as the Computer Science one was recently. Unfortunately nobody listens to me and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls is essentially inactive so debate there may be pointless. I think most of the people who edit these list pages do not even know about this WikiProject, let alone have it on their watchlist. Maybe I should just reword that criteria on all the articles and see whether anyone reverts it. Maybe on this biology list first. Or maybe, I should have a go on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls to rewrite the criteria and draw attention to it in various places. What do you think? --Bduke 23:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

See below. I have made a proposal on the project talk page. Bduke 00:37, 17 December 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 00:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories of important publications

Please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls##Categories of important publications. Thanks, APH 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)