Talk:List of important publications in geology

message: ... is not a sub-discipline of geology and should not have a permanent place on this list as it is currently constructed.  See [] 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Soil Science...

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Is this a stub

message: 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)
thread_title: The criteria for entries

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

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

text: Agree. The book is still there though. Also, this article cites no papers. Most of the important contributions to geology have been published in the primary literature (i.e. peer reviewed journals). 38.100.75.194 (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Agree to all of the above. I'm taking the plunge and deleting it... Haven't added the Magoon though, as I don't know it. DanHobley (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

text: It's back again! Someone really wants this in. I'm taking it out again. That person also added a book (Mojzsis et al., Evidence for life on Earth before 3.8Ga) which sounds pretty comprehensively "out there"; I'm reverting that too. DanHobley (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals for deletion

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

message: * Volcanoes, Gordon A. Macdonald, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1972 ()
*  It uses Macdonald (1972) as its backbone, should we not exchange this reference?
*--Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volcanoes 

message: Can we please define some specific criteria for notability? I can agree with the "Topic Creator", "Breakthrough", and "Influence" criteria. But I think having "Introduction" and "Latest and Greatest" is not helpful. It will only invite people to post their favorite textbook (such as S. Boggs' great, but not "important", stratigraphy book) or highly specialized papers that will need to be updated constantly. Also, most topic creators, breakthroughs and influential ideas are published in peer reviewed papers these days and books are only compilations of such works (note that this is the rule, but there are a few exceptions). I would like to propose that we discuss any further book additions (especially those published after 1975). Also, we should add more peer reviewed papers so we can give researchers the credit they deserve. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I broadly agree. "Introduction" and "Latest and Greatest" are clearly unhelpful. Likewise, I think a sweep to remove textbooks is required (though I guess not what you might term "reference works", e.g., DHZ, the "big blue book" for petrology - hmmm, actually that's missing as is!). However, I think it's going to prove pretty challenging to create truly objective criteria. And an unthinking expansion to papers might also cause trouble, as in theory, all published papers are groundbreaking to some extent - that's the point. I think the best approach is probably the duck test - I reckon most of us looking at this page know a truly groundbreaking paper when we see it. DanHobley (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

text: OK - I reckon the Economic Geology, Geodetics, and Volcanology sections are all basically textbook lists. Surely there are some early groundbreaking books on Volcanology lurking out there?? "Quantitative Seismology" in Seismology probably also needs removing. Can I also propose we merge some fields? e.g., "Sedimentology and Stratigraphy", "Mineralogy and Petrology"? Little point in having sections of one thing each. DanHobley (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with merging the sections you named (and maybe others). I personally think that Quantitative Seismology (based on how often it is cited) should stay. But if at least one person (you) disagree, we should probably remove it for now and discuss that specific book in the talk page. About the papers: I think there are a few historical papers that have been clearly influential and groundbreaking. Hopefully we can list some of them. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No strong objection to the QS staying - not my expertise. I'll have a go at this ASAP. DanHobley (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The real problem with the textbooks is there's very little standardization in geology teaching between different universities even within countries, let alone between them. I recall being told as an undergrad that many works were "classics", only to find on conferring with graduates from elsewhere at later times that there is very little consensus on this. It tends to be the career-consuming reference books that look like bricks that are universal in the geosciences. DanHobley (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Awesome! Thanks, Dan! What do you guys think about somehow incorporating the "Importance" into the "Description"?  Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite like it as is (and is standard across different versions of these science pages???), but don't actually feel that strongly. At least as it is it forces people adding new books to at least pay lip service to why they think it's important. But as I said, no strong preference. DanHobley (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for "importance" 

message: Following on from the discussion in the proposal for deletion, what do people think of substituting the word "important" for something else? Suggestions in that discussion included "notable" (WP sensu stricto) and "influential". Both these are a bit less woolly than the current formulation, and may discourage future criticism. "Influential", of course, allows us to demonstrate influence by citations - though that may be less straightforward than it seems for the generally older references in this list. DanHobley (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See also this. DanHobley (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Important" = "Influential" ? 

message: Mike Cline (talk) has been creating a draft of WikiProject Bibliographies, a project that is very relevant to this page. Have a look! Also have a look at Bibliography of biology, formerly List of important publications in biology, which has been edited to conform with the policies of the wikiproject. Then consider the question: Should we move this page to Bibliography of geology? RockMagnetist (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography of geology? 

message: 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) 00:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, see my comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science_pearls#Proposed_inclusion_criteria - I favour the structural changes you proposed there, but in fact actually express a weak keep for this naming for this bibliography type. Let's wait for other editor comments, then try to get some consensus on this. I could quite possibly be persuaded on the change, given a very clear wording of the article selection criteria below the heading. Good work on pressing forward on this! DanHobley (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed selection criteria 

message: I've just expanded the list a little. Also, added a section on Geochronology. On that note, It's been nagging at me for a while that Archbishop Ussher's 4004BC estimate of the age of the Earth maybe deserves a place on this list. His estimate is certainly the first "serious", quantitative analysis of the age of the Earth. But equally, it's not really science!
Basically, I'm conflicted on this. I think it would be interesting to have on the page, but I also feel like somehow it's inappropriate. What does anyone else think? DanHobley (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it published as a manuscript? The Legend of Zorro 08:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Annales Veteris Testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti, una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Aegyptiacarum chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad Maccabaicorum initia producto. ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world, the chronicle of Asiatic and Egyptian matters together produced from the beginning of historical time up to the beginnings of Maccabes"). See Ussher chronology. DanHobley (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds interesting (though I have no idea either way if it belongs here). The Legend of Zorro 15:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archbishop Ussher