Talk:List of important publications in physics

message: 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 08:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standards in all the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls]] articles

message: *Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology (2nd nomination) Kappa 08:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related AFD 

message: List of publications in biology was moved to List of Important publications in biology ...  and this has now been done for chemistry as well. I'd suggest you follow suit for consistency. DGG 06:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: chemistry and biology

message: Why is this article tagged as original research? I don't really see an explanation for this. Please point out what is wrong and work towards fixing it or I will remove the tag. I understand that the tag may be there for a reason but unless you point out why it makes no sense. MartinDK 08:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research tag

message: This article and the other "List of important publications in XXX" are not the place for links to journals. These should be in List of scientific journals in physics and indeed they are (the 3 journals anyway - not the magazine). I have moved them here in case someone wants to dispute this. The magazine should be on Institute of Physics so I'll put it there. --Bduke 22:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Journals

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 00:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The criteria for entries

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: How does it make sense? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.29.162 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the theory of relativity 

message: A full citation for books and articles should be given. Publisher, dates, ISBN, etc... Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 17:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full reference 

message: I am about to change the link for this paper from http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html to http://theochem.kuchem.kyoto-u.ac.jp/Ando/planck1901.pdf .  The former has a number of problems, such as the HTML text using "q" or in one case "0" instead of theta.  The latter is a PDF file and is based on the former, but has this and some other corrections, plus some German next not in the former.  Robin Whittle (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better version of Planck's 1901 paper 

message: The  tag was inserted on October 27,2007 by an anonymous user with no discussion that I can find.  TStein (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we consider Nuetral Point of View resolved? 

message: The criterion given for inclusion in this list are quite vague in my opinion. Yet the five criteria are from an inclusion that hasn't been edited in five years and is used in a number of other articles. Is it time to divorce ourselves from these criteria (like list of important publications in chemistry did) and create our own? If so what should the criteria be? TStein (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who works on the boundary between chemistry and physics, I fully support a tightening up of the inclusion criteria along the lines of what the chemists did, or even tougher. Essentially any item in this list should have its own article, or perhaps an extensive section on the article on its author, or have sources that show its importance and the meeting of the inclusion criteria. We need to work towards that. --Bduke  (Discussion) 03:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we change the criteria for inclusion in this list? 

message: Is there objection to moving this page to Bibliography of physics?Curb Chain (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. WP:LIST gives the conventions presently used for collections like this; the name "List of..." is standard. Furthermore, regarding your edit summary for the move, the word "important" was deliberately added in 2006. My own feeling is that, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, an indiscriminate list is not a useful thing to have. List selection criteria as a general topic are described at WP:LSC. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) Yes, there are objections. It was premature and done without consensus. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Bibliography of physics. This move back was exactly what I expected to happen. These lists are discussed in many different places. It takes time to get consensus. --Bduke  (Discussion) 00:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

text: There doesn't seem to be any objection in the other renames of the articles.  For the sake of consistency, this article should not be the only article that should be remain at the old name.  If you have objection to the rename at this list, you need to object to the other renames of the other lists as well.Curb Chain (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There will indeed be objections. Give time for a consensus to develop. While that is going on, there is no need for them to all have the same form of the title. --Bduke  (Discussion) 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

text: There will be objections, don't worry. You've done this over a couple of _days_. People don't always check Wikipedia that often. I've given more details of my own objections at your wikiproject's page. In the future, please engage in discussion before making any major changes to an article or group of articles. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

text: A comment re the comment by Christopher Thomas. There has been a lot of discussion in the various recent AfD debates on these science lists about the word "Important". Many editors said that it was subjective and OR. I think there is a consensus that the change you mention, which I did after a AfD discussion on the biology list suggested adding "important", was actually, in hindsight,a bad move. To remove it does not mean that we put anything in the list. We have to follow WP guidelines and the recent AfD discussions have improved the specific guidelines for these articles. Please all look at the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls and Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies, along with the talk pages of the other lists, many of which have survived at AfD recently. This list should not be seen in isolation.  --Bduke  (Discussion) 00:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

text: As another major contributor to WikiProject Bibliographies, I agree that this move should not have been done without discussion. I hope this will not prejudice editors against the WikiProject, which is potentially a good response to all these recent AfDs. Unlike "List of important X", "Bibliography" is a recognized form of list. It does not have to be discriminate: see our discussion on selection criteria. Also have a look at Bibliography of biology for how this page might look. Of course, these changes could be made without renaming the list. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm going to mention these thoughts on the project page. The textbook one might not be so difficult – it could be called List of physics textbooks. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll stress again the importance of discussion before major changes. If you're proposing modifying this list, then in addition to having a thread here, start a thread at WT:PHYS pointing to this discussion. If you're proposing modifying many such lists, start an RFC, as I've already suggested. The whole point of the RFC process is to get community input from as wide a selection of editors as possible, so that consensus can be established before a major change to convention is undertaken. A thread at your wikiproject will be read only by members of your wikiproject, and being a very new project, that's not many people. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just starting a discussion about guidelines, not proposing any changes. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: I have copied the educational books that have just been removed into Talk:List of important publications in physics/Educational books. These might be useful to someone who wants to start an educational bibliography. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Educational books 

message: In the section "Quantum mechanics" there are some broken links:
The link to Erwin Schrödinger's "Vierte Mitteilung" is broken.
The link to Erwin Schrödinger's "Dritte Mitteilung" leads to his "Zweite Mitteilung"
2003:7A:A1F:8301:524:1E5:9375:B6B6 (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on List of important publications in physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/gtext3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120610124128/http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/historic-papers/1901_309_553-563.pdf to http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/historic-papers/1901_309_553-563.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://dieumsnh.qfb.umich.mx/archivoshistoricosMQ/ModernaHist/Schrodinger1926b.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://dieumsnh.qfb.umich.mx/archivoshistoricosMQ/ModernaHist/Schrodinger1926c.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://dieumsnh.qfb.umich.mx/archivoshistoricosMQ/ModernaHist/Schrodinger1926c.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://home.tiscali.nl/physis/HistoricPaper/Schroedinger/Schrodinger1926e.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of important publications in physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101105181651/http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Roetgen-X-Rays28dec1895.htm to http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Roetgen-X-Rays28dec1895.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705015625/http://home.tiscali.nl/physis/HistoricPaper/Schroedinger/Schrodinger1926a.pdf to http://home.tiscali.nl/physis/HistoricPaper/Schroedinger/Schrodinger1926a.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050128002304/http://home.tiscali.nl/physis/HistoricPaper/Schroedinger/Schrodinger1926b.pdf to http://home.tiscali.nl/physis/HistoricPaper/Schroedinger/Schrodinger1926b.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, this paper "calculated" the 100th most important paper in physics published in Physical Review journals. It may be used as a source here. Pamputt (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific paper 

message: Hi all, without inclusion criteria, this list is trivial nonsense and can have no claim to notability. Is anyone willing to work on this,  or should we just let it go to AfD? I'm honestly fine with either: The topic is inherently trivial and defining, even rigidly, a set of inclusion criteria will only have a modest effect on the trivial nature of the list, but at least it would be a start. My personal opinion is that a page like this should only to point to other pages, like list of important 19th century physics publications and list of import publications in special relativity and a couple dozen similar lists that use books and papers by historians of science to define the sets. That would be a lot of work, though, and I'm sure others would disagree. All comments and suggestions are welcome. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footlessmouse (talk • contribs) 0:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Selection criteria are part of the Manual of Style, and a lack of them is not grounds for deletion (as has been established in many AfD's). This list meets the notability criteria for stand-alone lists because it has some reliable sources that provide lists of publications in physics (see the Further reading section). I would recommend using those sources as a guide for developing selection criteria. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  you are wrong, none of the references are for "important publications in physics", they are all for more selective topics and the article has no notability piecing together such selective topics and extrapolating to call this the definitive list of "important publications in physics". In fact, most of the references are primary, but none of them are as general as "important publications in physics". I highly disagree that it meets WP:LISTN, it fails miserably and is basically cruft. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Everyone seems to forget this, but WP:LISTN begins with "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Not the case for this article. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion criteria