Talk:List of important publications in chemistry/Archive 1

message: Franklin's contribution to biochemistry is large but the list is a list of publications and not a list of people. If a specific publication of her will be given, it should be added to the list. APH 13:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rosalind Franklin]] 

message: Again, as in Franklin's case, the purpose f the list should be clarified.
This is a list of specific important publications.
Therefore, journals doesn't fit here.
I removed the journals appearing bellow from the entry.
Specific publications form these journals are welcomed.
APH 13:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Environmental chemistry]]

message: First, I note APH's point above that we should move discussion to the science pearls page. I think the most important point which I ask APH to consider and raise in relation to the other science pearls page is whether the "Importance" reason might be modified to somethink like:-
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.
You may have better wording. My concern is that this reason, without modification of some kind, opens us up to adding every general chemistry text book, and every introduction to physical chemistry, inorganic chemistry and so on. To not do so would not be NPOV as inclusion of one text has to be from a POV. I have used several of these texts over the years. There is no objective criteria to chose one over the others. One decides on how it fits the way you want to teach the course, cost, availability, etc. Below I will put for debate two books for debate on inclusion where the reason is "Introduction" and where I suggest the impact on chemistry was significant, warrenting their inclusion on this page.
Second, I propose we follow the following critria:-
# Books for inclusion can be added in the usual Wikipedia way by anyone editing the page. However it is expected that each entry should give a brief description of the book and a statement of the importance of the publication. The importance could be further developed on the talk page.
# Where the editor has failed to add the description and importance statement, they will be advised to add these (if of course they are registed on Wikipeddia and have a user talk page).
# Failure to add the description and importance statements after 7 days is reason enough for the entry to be deleted.
# New entries will be opened for debate on the talk page With Wikipedians asked to state whether the entry should be deleted or kept. This debate will be open for 10 days. The debate should centre around whether the entry can be included while maintaining the Wikipedia NPOV.
# Articles from journals or review books can be included but they should be of very great significance. Journal titles alone should not be included and will be deleted without debate.
# Books where the justification for inclusion is "introduction" are particularly prone to being added not from a NPOV. They should have had a significance for chemistry, perhaps in the way it changed the way chemistry was taught, but perhaps in other ways.
Third, these criteria should be put at the top of the talk page and attention drawn to them at the top of the page.
: I will do this. It is still open for debate and of course change. Bduke 00:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the proposed policy. A possible solution for the case in which there are some introduction book, all not too important, is to create a joint entry from them called “introduction books”. This way, reader wanting to learn about the topic will know where to start yet it will be clear that they are not a “must read”.  Will such a solution solve the specific problem you mentioned? APH 08:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might well solve the problem in part, but it creates another problem. The new page will now be not NPOV unless it can be expanded to add pretty well every book. Would you suggest sewparate pages for introductory general chemistry (year 1 courses), and introductory physical chemistry, introductory organic chemistry and so on (year 2 courses generally). There are also introductory books to final year study and even post graduate study. The P/G stuff should be references to specific pages like I added more references to the Computational chemistry page. I am open to being pursuaded but right now I think we should try to avoid adding large numbers of references anywhere and stick to references that are really special and significant. Bduke 10:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy proposals for this page 

message: I am inclined to say that the Lavoisier and Mendeleev entries under Foundations should be kept without debate and they are clear highly significant. However I wonder whether we should add Lavoisier's main book. I have seen this described as the first modern chemistry text.
The rest that we have not considered are open for debate:-
Protective Groups in Organic Synthesis by Theodora W. Greene and Peter G. M. Wuts.
* Delete - I have no strong views but this is justified as an introduction and there is no further support. Is it significant in other ways? Bduke 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two above seem to me to be the only two that justify deletion now. I will delete them. See my discussion below called "Summary of debate - 17 Jan 2006". Bduke 00:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please delete the psychopharmacology section.  It's just embarrasing. ~K 02:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will delete all three of these. I do not think anybody can support their inclusion. Bduke 00:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate on existing entries 

message: I propose the following lines should be deleted:-
* See Also: List of scientific journals - Materials science
* subclass, Psychopharmacology
* Directory of Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
I will just delete these unless people want to debate them. Bduke 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please delete the psychopharmacology section.  It's just embarrasing. ~K 02:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will delete all three of these. I do not think anybody can support their inclusion. Bduke 00:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other questions 

message: First, I have altered the heading for "Computational chemistry" to "Theoretical chemistry, Quantum chemistry and Computational Chemistry" and moved the two current entries from Physical Chemistry there. I suggest this is more appropriate. Many older texts on Quantum chemistry give the theory followed by the practice of Computational chemistry, which was not named as a sub-discipline at the time.
Second, I have added some new entries and open them up for debate:-
Physical Chemistry by P. W. Atkins.
Keep - I have justified this on the page itself. Physical chemistry was taught differently after Atkins and all other text books from then on had to respond and write in the refreshing way that Atkins did in stark contrast to earlier texts. Bduke 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New entries for debate 

message: I have added the journals that I deleted to the above page which I was previously unaware of. This is the place to just give journal titles. There is also List of scientific journals, which lists the most important journals. Bduke 07:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of scientific journals in chemistry]] 

message: The latest debate has been going for a week. The response has been rather poor. I fear that unless more Wikidedian chemists express views on this page and its entries then it will be impossible to stop it going away from NPOV. I am therefore being rather cautious about delete entries now. Maybe this edit will come up on people's watchlist and others may comment. I am leaving all entries except two. I am putting the proposed policy at the top of this page, with a note at the top of the main page. I am deleting the three odd things. There is more detail furhter up at the appropriate point. 
I now realise that the criteria I proposed suggest that I should wait for 10 days, but I have already made these changes. They can be reversed if necessary. Bduke 00:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know Wikidedian chemists? Maybe we should contact them and tell them about the page. APH 07:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, and I have told them. It is mentioned on Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and Portal:Chemistry. Bduke 09:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of debate - 17 Jan 2006