Talk:List of important publications in physics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

This article doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Should it even be here? -- CYD—Preceding undated comment added at 08:18, 19 September 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The list of publications in physics is quite young.
Therefore look like that (empty sections, few articles).
Please look at list of publications in computer science, the oldest and most mature list in order to see what a list should look like.
Can you contribute to the list?
I'll appreciate your help very much.
Thanks,

APH 09:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Standards in all the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls articles[edit]

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)[reply]

Related AFD[edit]

chemistry and biology[edit]

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)[reply]

Original research tag[edit]

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)[reply]

Journals[edit]

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)[reply]

See Also:List of scientific journals - Optics

The criteria for entries[edit]

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)[reply]

Categories of important publications[edit]

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

the theory of relativity[edit]

How does it make sense? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.29.162 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Full reference[edit]

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)[reply]

Better version of Planck's 1901 paper[edit]

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)[reply]

Can we consider Nuetral Point of View resolved?[edit]

The {{NPOV}} 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)[reply]

Organizing fields of physics[edit]

I would like to restructure the various sections into this article so that the fields of physics can be organized into groups so that they are easier to find. For example I was thinking of creating a group called Classical Physics which would have Classical mechanics, Optics, Electromagnetism. Here is what I was thinking roughly:

  • Classical physics
    • Classical mechanics, Optics, Electromagnetism
  • Modern physics
    • Quantum mechanics, Quantum field theory, relativity, special relativity
  • Condensed matter
    • Thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, solid state, material science etc..
  • Particle and Nuclear
    • accelerator physics, nuclear physics, etc..
  • Math and Computational
    • Mathematical physics, Computational Physics, Physics of Computation
  • Engineering
    • Acoustics, Material science, Polymer, etc.
  • Astronomy
    • Cosmology, Astronomy, Astrophysics, etc.

Any thoughts? TStein (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea, and much better than the totally random order we have now. Classical physics, modern physics etc. can be sections (with headers between ==) and classical mechanics, optics, etc. can be subsections (headers between ===).
Also, we should remove the horrible system which forces the reader to open one section at a time, and replace it by a normal table of contents which gives the reader a choice between moving to a desired section or scrolling through the whole article (or several related sections). With the present system I can't even find a section on Quantum mechanics.Dirac66 (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the source code and found that the QM section follows General relativity. But in the article QM does not show up in the list of openable sections, so Planck and Dirac are hidden in General relativity !?!? We need a normal table of contents which does not hide sections. Dirac66 (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the removed the system of forcing the user to open one section at a time and re-established the table of contents. TStein (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Thank you. Dirac66 (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we change the criteria for inclusion in this list?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Introduction, recent textbooks should vanish[edit]

As I understand the very essence of this page is to list publications that were important for development of physics. I noticed that many publications present here are not research papers, but recent textbooks. If i loot at quantum mechanics in this article, I would expect to find names such as Pauli, Schrodinger, Dirac, de Broglie, Heisenberg, Einstein - papers in which the idea of operators, Schrodinger equation was given for the first time, but not reference to Griffiths textbook which was written 80 years later.

Criteria seem to be very different for each field. For the case of chaos and nonlinear phenomena, two very important historically are given: Lorentz and Li Yorke papers (maybe Sharkowski should also be included). For Quantum mechanics 2004 textbook by Griffiths was given which was not important historically at all - it is a standard, basic textbook for undergraduate students. If so Why not include Sakurai, Shankar and many different books? Possibly some good russian books should be also included. This is not meant to be advertisement for publishers and if one is interested in finding an introduction to a field they should look for "quantum mechanics introductory textbook" in google.

Therefore I have deleted Griffith's intro to the QM from the list. I plan to continue this approach. --Lacek2 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object to making this decision now (and apparently the reverting editor did too). If I had to list the de-facto "standard" textbooks (perhaps limited to a specific country, but if a textbook is pervasive in only the U.K., it should count), they would be Griffiths, Shankar, Jackson, Peskin&Schroeder, and possibly Fermi's stat-mech and Goldstein. Landau&Lifschitz deserve mention.
As of a cursory look, however, I can't find a survey of textbook use (2 phys blogs:[1][2]) at various universities to determine how pervasive these are. All we have now seems to be word-of-mouth and a whole bunch of top-tier universities using it. Then again, is there anything more than that to judge all the other publications here? SamuelRiv (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lacek2 (and BDuke in the previous section). Important publications are those which change a field, including pioneering textbooks such as Dirac's Principles of QM in 1930 but not its successors 75 years later. Dirac66 (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. The book "Classical and Statistical Thermodynamics — Ashley H. Carter and Benjamin Cummings" should also be removed from the list. And "An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory — Michael E. Peskin and Daniel V. Schroeder" could perhaps be replaced by "Quantum Field Theory- Claude Itzykson & J-B Zuber". Count Iblis (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the selection of textbooks makes the article seem biased, an article on important publications in physics shouldnt include textbooks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.220.58.38 (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Is there objection to moving this page to Bibliography of physics?Curb Chain (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Comment: I have no pony in this race. I really don't care what this article is named as long as we won't be going through this same process another 6 months from now chasing the next wikiproject of the hour. Long term, though, I think we need to have 3 separate 'bibliographies' (or lists): a list of important historical works, a list of current well used and well-written textbooks, and a project page list so that we can get book info quickly for ref tags. (If I am quoting Jackson and I want to reference it, I don't want to look up its ISBN no and publisher information every time.) The middle one will be the most controversial and the hardest to find criteria for, but to keep it with the current list is to mix apples and oranges in my opinion. TStein (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm just starting a discussion about guidelines, not proposing any changes. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TOC without document names? Ex. Geophysics[edit]

I have reformatted the geophysics section in a way that I think looks more professional. See what you think. One big advantage of this approach is that it would reduce the bloated TOC. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a TOC with only section headings for the physics subfields would be better, following the model of the new Bibliography of biology. If others agree that this is desirable, there is a possible shortcut to do this quickly without reformatting each entry. I recall seeing an article with a source code command like TOC=2 (I think), meaning show the TOC only to level 2, i.e. headings between == and not === (which are level 3).
Two other ideas from Bibliography of biology. (1) Place the sections in alphabetical order, which would make them easier to locate quickly. (2) Place the documents in each section in chronological order, which would give a better idea of the historical development of each field. Dirac66 (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The template you're talking about is {{TOC limit}} – I applied it to this list. Shortening the TOC highlights the disorganization of the sections. I am wondering whether a simple alphabetical list would be best or a hierarchical one, perhaps following the organization of Outline of geophysics or Category:Physics? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant the TOC limit template which is an improvement. A hierarchical list might be better as it could be based on the logic and history of the subject, e.g. classical before quantum. The alphabet of course would put Accelerator physics first, which is not my idea of where physics started. Perhaps you could suggest a specific order for the existing sections on the talk page first for discussion. Dirac66 (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before I suggest an order, I'd like to mention another advantage of the approach used in Bibliography of biology. Not only does the article as a whole have general references establishing its notability, but so do many of the sections. Of course, the bigger the subject the easier this is to do. Having a hierarchical organization will facilitate this and make it easier to split off sections as they get big enough. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to go too crazy about formatting issues, especially since you are doing a lot of good things with this article and I have seen too many petty arguments about style. I do, however, feel strongly that the style that you are using for the geophysics section is too cramped; it is difficult to sort out visually the different publications. I can see your point about the rest of the article not looking as professional; also, it is a bad idea to use a mechanism designed for sectioning for style. (In the parlance of web design, that design mixed semantics and styling with is a big no-no.) Essentially you are using an unordered list (with the bullets). What we need is a specialized form of a definition list (if wikipedia supports a good definition list).TStein (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hierarchical ordering of sections[edit]

Here is one proposal for a hierarchical structure. Of course, there are many other ways of organizing the publications. The most important criterion for a good structure may be the existence of a good source that would establish a section as a stand-alone list (if one can be found). Also, I haven't attempted to be comprehensive – these are just the sections that already have something in them.

  • Applied physics
  • Accelerator physics
  • Biophysics
  • Geophysics
  • Plasma physics
  • Vehicle dynamics
  • Astrophysics
  • Cosmology
  • Classical mechanics
  • Acoustics
  • Continuum mechanics
  • Fluid dynamics
  • Condensed matter physics
  • Polymer physics
  • Electromagnetism
  • Optics
  • Mathematical physics
  • Nonlinear dynamics and chaos
  • Physics of computation
  • Particle physics
  • Quantum mechanics
  • Quantum field theory
  • Relativity theories
  • Special
  • General
  • Statistical mechanics
  • Thermodynamics

RockMagnetist (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a reasonable ordering of the sections we have, although I would group the last two as Statistical and Thermal Physics.
Also there are some glaring omissions such as nuclear physics, which can be added when documents are suggested. Possibly nuclear can be grouped with particle and/or atomic physics (another omission). Dirac66 (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that there was an ordering that everyone can agree on, but I am becoming more worried that there isn't one. I proposed one above based on how the curriculum is ordered in the typical physics program (undergraduate divided into classical and modern and graduate research divided into condensed matter, nuclear/particle, mathematical physics, and applied physics.) I guess that I can live with yours with some modifications: I see no reason to separate out astrophysics from applied physics. I never knew why vehicle dynamics was included. Plasma physics probably belongs in condensed matter even though it isn't condensed. I disagree strongly with putting optics under electromagnetism. Only a tiny portion of optics depends on the EM nature of light. I think the category of relativity theories is rather stretched. GR and SR are not enough closely related IMHO. (GR depends on SR, but the vast majority of SR has no need for GR). Finally, as was noted Stat Mech and Thermo really need to be placed together. TStein (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the principle that any organization is better than no organization, I reorganized the list. TStein, I took most of your suggestions, except that I didn't make astrophysics part of applied physics (it isn't mentioned in Applied physics) and I kept GR and SR in a section. They are closely enough related that it will cause no confusion - and given that the sections are ordered alphabetically, they would otherwise be far apart. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One consequence of reordering is that the TOC looks a bit strange. Apparently, if there are no 3rd order subsections, the TOC will treat 4th order as third. This is best fixed by converting all the publications into bulleted entries instead of subsections.RockMagnetist (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have been busy, and the TOC looks good now. Sorry the TOC limit template did not eliminate the need for reformatting, but it is done now.
A few minor suggestions within your framework:
  1. I agree with TStein that Vehicle dynamics should not be in the article. This subject is engineering, not physics.
  2. Theories of relativity should just be Relativity, with subsections Special Relativity and General Relativity
  3. Uncategorized is unhelpful. Can someone suggest where best to categorize the Physics of Computation publication? Dirac66 (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know just where to move Vehicle dynamics - the article Vehicle dynamics has no references! I put in Uncategorized in the hope of annoying someone into figuring out where to put it. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed inclusion criteria[edit]

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) 00:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a little exercise on the Science pearls talk page to see if the proposed criteria are useful for textbooks. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to learn whether secondary sources and/or additional educational books should be part of this list or not. The term 'importance' by itself is a relative term. E.g. in accelerator physics, there are many educational books that are frequently cited in papers. Following the discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science_pearls#Proposed_inclusion_criteria, they would fall under the criterion 1 of the General notibility criteria for books; and other subsections of this list do also include educational books at present. Again, they maybe are not 'important' in a strict sense (compared to primary sources).
Possibly, one way to clear this point would be to use the Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline for this list and only account for primary sources in which new ideas or concepts are first stated, and put the larger list of educational books/secondary sources into either
*another list, maybe named "List of educational books on physics", including open source books from Wikipedia itself like Book:Maxwell's_equations, or
*a dedicated subsection of the main article for the specific topic, (e.g. in the given example, in the article "Accelerator physics").
Thanks in advance for feedback. BR84 (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Educational books[edit]

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)[reply]

Broken links[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific paper[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move 17 November 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn Footlessmouse (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in physics → List of historically significant publications in physics – Reword to give more defined inclusion criteria. Currently, anything could count as an "important publication in physics", so it is not the best title, in my opinion. The Inclusion criteria template has been here for over 8 years and I think we should show the article a little love after settling on an inclusion criteria. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. (t · c) buidhe 05:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZXCVBNM, that doesn't really change anything, it leaves the same inclusion criteria problems. What about List of historical physics publications, though that seems lacking as well. I don't think there is much of a problem with concise here, as it is a list and the article title needs to be qualified to give the list some kind of scope. I'm certainly willing to brain storm other ideas, though. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do make a good point, though, I think the best title would be List of historically significant physics publications it is still long, but it is concise, it spells out exactly what the article is. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Last note, sorry, there is some precedence for these sorts of titles, such as List of historically black colleges and universities, List of historically significant college football games, and List of historically significant English cricket teams. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there really any difference between "significant" and "historically significant"? The "historical" is implied. Any significant physics paper, even in modern day, would technically be historically significant going forward into the future.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Thanks for your responses. That is also a fair point. While I think you are technically correct, I wanted to include the word for its implication rather than strict definition. Its implication is that the page will include those publications which played a major role in developing physics. Specifically, publications that are not just important, but studied by historians of science. Using references from those studies is by far the easiest method of determining what belongs on a list such as this, without the need for original research or populating it with tens of thousands of arcane works. If there is significant coverage of the publication by studies of science historians, then it belongs here, otherwise they probably don't. That's my proposal anyways. I suppose ironing out that inclusion criteria is more important than the title, so if we can work together to build that out and specify it in the lead, maybe including historical in the lead won't be necessary, though I still prefer it. Thanks again! Footlessmouse (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will close this, but if nobody is willing to work on the inclusion criteria, I will be nominating the article for deletion as trivial and unreferenceable nonsense. Much like other articles on WP that have similar titles, the topic is too vague to have a meaningful definition, much less any claim to notability. As this request was made over a month ago and there has been no effort to improve it, I don't actually know of a better option than AfD. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion criteria[edit]

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)

@Footlessmouse: 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)[reply]
@RockMagnetist: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Perhaps this discussion could be moved to a place where a wider discussion on all 12 "List of important publications in ..." articles could be discussed. The argument above applies to all of them. --Bduke (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_important_publications_in_physics&oldid=1208248090"