Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bibliographies/Science task force

message: Fellow Wikipedians, I have taken the initiative, in consultation with a few others, to draft a WikiProject for Bibliographies.  I hope it will be of interest to members of this project.  The genesis of this effort has been a recent spate of AfD nominations of lists of publications.  For the most part, the articles were not deleted, but that doesn’t mean many of them didn’t need work.  A WP article entitled List of subject publications or any list of works, is by any other name, a Bibliography.  Bibliographies within WP are specifically identified as a form of List in WP:List, are subject to List notability guidelines and the List Manual of Style.  Unfortunately, many of the existing Bibliographies (or lists of publications) are not up to these standards.  And there’s a high probability that new lists of publications or new Bibliographies won’t completely meet these standards as well, unless we as a community bring greater visibility to this genre of lists.
So the explicit goals of this draft project are to establish project-level advice for creating good bibliographies, gradually bring the existing set of bibliographies (400+) up to standard and to encourage editors to create bibliographies on topics and authors where appropriate.  The goal is not to create bibliographies of everything or on everything.
I think the draft Bibliography project is logically connected to this project and members here would have a lot to contribute.  If you are interested in participating, please sign up on the draft project page.  If we get sufficient interest, I will move the draft into the Wikipedia space and we can press on.  Also, please don’t hesitate to make suggestions on the draft here.  I am sure it can be improved, will need some work to comply with Project guidelines and that it will evolve as this thing gets going.  Thanks in advance for your support.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made Bibliography of biology (formerly List of important publications in biology) the first test case for the policies in WikiProject for Bibliographies. Help out if you can! RockMagnetist (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soliciting Support for Draft WikiProject Bibliographies 

message: Note that part of Mike's vision is that Science pearls become a Task force called the Science bibliographies task force. I heartily endorse this idea. Science pearls has too small a scope to thrive as a wikiproject. I think we should also rename our lists to bibliographies and follow his style guidelines (which are really well thought out) in the articles. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This makes sense. --Bduke  (Discussion) 22:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We are now effectively a task force, and I have mothballed the Science pearls project banner. For now, there doesn't seem to be any need to change the name. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task force? 

message: I have been making Bibliography of biology into a test case for the guidelines in the draft of WikiProject Bibliographies. The bibliography is now organized and formatted according to those guidelines. 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) 22:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography of biology 

message: If you look at the assessment table, you will see that we now have several more articles, including a featured list! That's List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. I added all the bibliographies of scientists to our task force. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  We now have a featured list 

message: Here is a list of textbooks:
#Berkeley Physics Course
#Classical Mechanics by Goldstein
#Course of Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifshitz
#The Feynman Lectures on Physics
#Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick
#Gravitation (book) by Misner, Thorne, Wheeler
#Stochastic Resonance (book) by Bezrukub and Kosko
#Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics by Sussman and Wisdom
All the entries are textbooks and have their own WP articles, so at least one person thinks they are notable. Which notability criterion applies to each? Which would belong in List of important publications in physics and which in a list of textbooks only? RockMagnetist (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the whole point is that a defensible "important publications" list wouldn't be drawn up this way... we would need a third party reference (or several!) saying the books are influential (as we discussed on the geology article deletion page). I'm not a physics specialist by any means, so wouldn't even know where to start looking for such a 3rd party list. However, of these, I am familiar with the Feynman, and not with any of the others. To me, that's a pretty good sign the Feynman is probably more important than the others are, and would definitely make such a list. That's not to say others wouldn't, but were I to be looking over a hypothetical page listing all these, I would want to see the sources justifying their influence. Clearly they are all suitable for a textbook list though - except maybe those where the notability requirements of the actual articles themselves are dubious (e.g., Stochastic resonance is already flagged as possibly not notable).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanHobley (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the point of this list is that each entry links to an article which is supposed to justify the notability. Is it possible to tell from the justification which class each book falls into? RockMagnetist (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in part. I could immediately tell from the articles that they were all appropriate for a textbook list, but couldn't necessarily tell they might or might not also be appropriate for list type 1. Though to be fair, for the Feynman you get some pretty heavy hints (e.g., referenced comment ("The Feynman Lectures are considered to be one of the best and most sophisticated college level introductions to physics."), possibly also for the Landau and Lifshitz. This list type I think should be drawn from third party summary references, as strictly per WP:LISTN - this information might not be in the source references, but it easily could be put there. DanHobley (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

text: ...In fact, I think a great advantage of getting these lists sorted out is they will force us to go back and improve the source references themselves. This is a pretty worthwhile aim in its own right. DanHobley (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely! I find that, when I am working on one of these lists, I discover a lot of articles that are in very poor shape. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: An exercise

message: See the discussion at the Bibliographies talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it time to finish the transition to a task force? 

message: See
* Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC
* Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFCs on citations templates and the flagging free-to-read sources 

message: I would like a new :Category:Most important added under :Category:Superlatives (or possible under :Category:Rankings) that could list these most important scientific publications (or lists, subcategories, etc.). Note that it would not be just for science. For example :Category:Important Bird Areas would also be so categorized. Dpleibovitz (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Most) Important as a superlative (or ranking) category 

message: Template:List of publications intro has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Please note that I am not the nominator but instead was the original creator of the template. As such, I was notified on my talk page by the nominator, User:Pppery. I am copying the notice to here since this falls within the purview of this WikiProject. - dcljr (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for deletion of Template:List of publications intro 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: There is a Request for Comment about Robert Lanza#Biocentrism that may be of interest to members of the WikiProject: Bibliographies/Science task force. Talk:Robert Lanza#Request For Comment Robert Lanza. I would encourage members of this project to consider participating to add diversity to the discussion. Sapphire41359 (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment Robert Lanza