Talk:Antiquarian science books



Untitled

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Antiquarian science book → Antiquarian science books — This concerns the genre of books, rather than a single book. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - "Antiquarian science book" as a title for an article has always sounded a little odd to me. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This shall not be an article!!!
Articles on "antiquarian books" are meaningless for encyclopedic purposes, they shall be avoided!!!Undead Herle King (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * um, why? have you heard about the "Pokemon test"? Bibliophilia is as least as notable a hobby I should say. --dab (𒁳) 15:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree, this list is related to the major milestones in science, which is of course valuable for encyclopedic purposes Mario C (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Alert: lists of publications in Articles for deletion
Some lists of books have been added to Articles for deletion. You can find the discussions here. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Prices
Quoting prices for specific known sales or auctions of the works listed here would be interesting, but come on, no references? How is this even making sense? You need to state when and where exactly the cited price was paid, otherwise this is just random uncited white noise. --dab (𒁳) 15:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree more are needed, but after reviewing the list of books I consider it pretty interesting so I have added more references. Mario C (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

as I suspected, these are just random figures somebody pulled out of their nose. They gave "$110,000" for Copernicus' 1543 (not 1542 as incorrectly stated) De revolutionibus . If you bought this book at this price, you should have it closely examined, because you underpaid it by a factor of 20. Either you spent 110k on a cheap fake, or you just made a 2 millions' profit. Either way, these numbers need to be sourced, or they need to go. --dab (𒁳) 16:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Turns out this misinformation is due to User:BookWormHR, a self-described member of the top thousandth in terms of intelligence. It annoys me to no end when people on Wikipedia throw around claims on degrees or, even better, intelligence, and then do stupid shit like this. Better to let your actions speak for your intelligence, or competence, I say. --dab (𒁳) 16:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antiquarian science books. 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/20080509062742/http://www.ilab.org/services/searchform.php to http://www.ilab.org/services/searchform.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090701041121/http://search.abaa.org/dbp2/searchform.php to http://search.abaa.org/dbp2/searchform.php

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) 10:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)