Talk:List of important publications in statistics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] tabulation
just idea - maybe tabulated info is better?
| Statistics | Publication | Author | Publication data (publisher, year, (ed.), ISSN/ISBN) | Online version | Annotation | Importance Intro / Topic creator / Breakthrough / Influence |
| Probability | The Doctrine of Chances | :Author: Abraham de Moivre | :Publication data: 1738 (2nd ed.) | :Online version: ? | :Description: The book introduced the concept of normal distributions as approximations to binomial distributions. In effect, de Moivre proved a weak version of the central limit theorem. Sometimes his result is called the theorem of de Moivre-Laplace. | :Importance: Topic creator, Breakthrough, Influence |
We can check the use of tables but I’m not sure they are appropriate. I tried using tables in the first version of the List of publications in computer science. Editing the list was a bit problematic, especially to new users. Some of the most important contributions to the list are from anonymous users and I wouldn’t like to make their work harder. In the long term, I hope to have an article in wikipedia for each publication. Maybe then we will be able to use summary tables. APH 07:48, 15 November 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)
[edit] Related AFD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology (2nd nomination) Kappa 08:20, 10 September 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 00:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Categories of important publications
Please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls##Categories of important publications. Thanks, APH 10:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
