Talk:List of important publications in geology

Soil Science...
... is not a sub-discipline of geology and should not have a permanent place on this list as it is currently constructed. See [] for my statement on the placement of soil science among other peer disciplines. Similarly, climatology appears to be out of place on this list. Paleorthid 20:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no background in geology. I created the entries using the article about geology and I'm happy that you correct my errors. Are there any other entries that should be removed? Are there entries that should be added? Should we move soil science and climatology to a different list? It will be a shame if we won't have an entry for them. APH 07:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Standards in all the WikiProject Science pearls articles
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 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 08:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The potential for controversy here is huge. And geology (let alone the technical subdisciplines like igneous petrology) seems like a topic sufficiently under-represented in the ranks of Wikipedia editors to effectively discuss and come to a consensus on such a list.  Although I am a geologist, I can't vouch for all subdisciplines (and I can't spend time every day on Wikipedia arguing with others about this stuff).  My two cents: the Charles Lyell and G. K. Gilbert articles belong on the list, but I am automatically suspicious of anything published after about 1975.  How do we have the historical hindsight to declare a paper or book published in 2000 as an "important paper", and not be so broad in our definition as to include ten-thousand other research papers and books?


 * It seems it would be better to find a list of important publications from a reputable outside source, such as the Geological Society of America or the American Association for the Advancement of Science, if such a list exists. That would take the wiki-controversy out of it.  -- BlueCanoe 22:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems sensible, but do such things exist? I am of course a chemist and I can not think of anything produced by the Royal Society of Chemistry or the American Chemistry Society. If you find anything (or if I do) let us make sure it goes on the Science Pearls talk page so all disciplines can benefit. --Bduke 23:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this a stub
This article is clearly a stub, but I'm too new to editing to figure out how to label it as such. Pete Tillman 03:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What article? The article for which this is its talk page, very clearly is not a stub. --Bduke 03:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, what else would you call it? The list is absurdly incomplete -- only two publications have more than author-title information. Pete Tillman 04:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In terms of its length it is not a stub, but I agree it is very incomplete as are many similar lists. The discussion above that I started earlier is very relevant. How do we ensure that entries to this article are not from POV pushers. I'm not a Geologist. I try to look after the similar article on Chemistry. There we debate all new entries. Every entry has to have a section on "Importance" and "Description" or it will be deleted. I think it more important to add new good entries and expand on the importance and description of current entries, then it is to make this a stub. --Bduke 04:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I agree. I am a geologist --perhaps I can adopt this page, as time permits. I'll take a look at your Chemistry list page for ideas (I started out as a chemist). Pete Tillman 06:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, discuss anything you want about it here. I'll keep it on my watch list. BTW, I see that User:APH who started off all these science pearl lists has not contributed to Wikidedia since January. We are on our own. --Bduke 07:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for entries
Please take a look at a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls 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 00:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposals for deletion
I propose deleting Thomas Gold's The Deep Hot Biosphere from the Petroleum Geology section. Gold's work isn't widely accepted in petroleum geology -- his abiogenic theory of petroleum genesis is now considered borderline crackpot. Comments? -- Pete Tillman 05:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC), Consulting Geologist
 * Agree. Cheers Geologyguy 16:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Borderline crackpot, not of much use in actual oil exploration. Magoon's book on Petroleum Systems or something similar would be more appropriate. 202.185.73.68 04:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Iskandar Taib
 * Deleted. Why don't you add Magoon? TIA, Pete Tillman 04:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. The book is still there though. Also, this article cites no papers. Most of the important contributions to geology have been published in the primary literature (i.e. peer reviewed journals). 38.100.75.194 (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree to all of the above. I'm taking the plunge and deleting it... Haven't added the Magoon though, as I don't know it. DanHobley (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's back again! Someone really wants this in. I'm taking it out again. That person also added a book (Mojzsis et al., Evidence for life on Earth before 3.8Ga) which sounds pretty comprehensively "out there"; I'm reverting that too. DanHobley (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Peter W. Lipman
I'm wondering. Peter W. Lipman's work is mainly about large volume volcanic eruptions in the Basin and Range Province. The publication cited is about St. Helen. He does not seem notable enough to have a biography. I think, if fourteen post-docs acknowledge him as a master, that's it. If the publication is acknowledged as a masterpiece, so must be the master who wrote it too and vice-e-versa. Nothing can be done about it? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Volcanoes

 * Volcanoes, Gordon A. Macdonald, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1972 (ISBN 0-13-942219-6)
 * It uses Macdonald (1972) as its backbone, should we not exchange this reference?
 * --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for "importance"
Can we please define some specific criteria for notability? I can agree with the "Topic Creator", "Breakthrough", and "Influence" criteria. But I think having "Introduction" and "Latest and Greatest" is not helpful. It will only invite people to post their favorite textbook (such as S. Boggs' great, but not "important", stratigraphy book) or highly specialized papers that will need to be updated constantly. Also, most topic creators, breakthroughs and influential ideas are published in peer reviewed papers these days and books are only compilations of such works (note that this is the rule, but there are a few exceptions). I would like to propose that we discuss any further book additions (especially those published after 1975). Also, we should add more peer reviewed papers so we can give researchers the credit they deserve. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I broadly agree. "Introduction" and "Latest and Greatest" are clearly unhelpful. Likewise, I think a sweep to remove textbooks is required (though I guess not what you might term "reference works", e.g., DHZ, the "big blue book" for petrology - hmmm, actually that's missing as is!). However, I think it's going to prove pretty challenging to create truly objective criteria. And an unthinking expansion to papers might also cause trouble, as in theory, all published papers are groundbreaking to some extent - that's the point. I think the best approach is probably the duck test - I reckon most of us looking at this page know a truly groundbreaking paper when we see it. DanHobley (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK - I reckon the Economic Geology, Geodetics, and Volcanology sections are all basically textbook lists. Surely there are some early groundbreaking books on Volcanology lurking out there?? "Quantitative Seismology" in Seismology probably also needs removing. Can I also propose we merge some fields? e.g., "Sedimentology and Stratigraphy", "Mineralogy and Petrology"? Little point in having sections of one thing each. DanHobley (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with merging the sections you named (and maybe others). I personally think that Quantitative Seismology (based on how often it is cited) should stay. But if at least one person (you) disagree, we should probably remove it for now and discuss that specific book in the talk page. About the papers: I think there are a few historical papers that have been clearly influential and groundbreaking. Hopefully we can list some of them. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No strong objection to the QS staying - not my expertise. I'll have a go at this ASAP. DanHobley (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to note that the template at the top of the article applies to all these lists of publications. It should not be just discussed here. I agree about the recent change to remove textbooks but only if they have not had a massive influence on the way a subject is taught. I have altered the template to add that and this brings it into line with the criteria on the chemistry list, which has not been using the template. I will add the template there if the template changes settle down. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The real problem with the textbooks is there's very little standardization in geology teaching between different universities even within countries, let alone between them. I recall being told as an undergrad that many works were "classics", only to find on conferring with graduates from elsewhere at later times that there is very little consensus on this. It tends to be the career-consuming reference books that look like bricks that are universal in the geosciences. DanHobley (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I went for it. Some restructuring, some pruning of dead wood, some new material where we were clearly lacking. Geochem remains a problem. I was fairly brutal, so please point up any changes you disagree with. My main criteria was that if it was borderline and no-one had filled in the Description and/or Importance fields, it went. We must prioritize filling in these fields on the still-included entries! DanHobley (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks, Dan! What do you guys think about somehow incorporating the "Importance" into the "Description"? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I quite like it as is (and is standard across different versions of these science pages???), but don't actually feel that strongly. At least as it is it forces people adding new books to at least pay lip service to why they think it's important. But as I said, no strong preference. DanHobley (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"Important" = "Influential" ?
Following on from the discussion in the proposal for deletion, what do people think of substituting the word "important" for something else? Suggestions in that discussion included "notable" (WP sensu stricto) and "influential". Both these are a bit less woolly than the current formulation, and may discourage future criticism. "Influential", of course, allows us to demonstrate influence by citations - though that may be less straightforward than it seems for the generally older references in this list. DanHobley (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See also this. DanHobley (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography of geology?
Mike Cline (talk) has been creating a draft of WikiProject Bibliographies, a project that is very relevant to this page. Have a look! Also have a look at Bibliography of biology, formerly List of important publications in biology, which has been edited to conform with the policies of the wikiproject. Then consider the question: Should we move this page to Bibliography of geology? RockMagnetist (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed selection criteria
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) 00:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, see my comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science_pearls - I favour the structural changes you proposed there, but in fact actually express a weak keep for this naming for this bibliography type. Let's wait for other editor comments, then try to get some consensus on this. I could quite possibly be persuaded on the change, given a very clear wording of the article selection criteria below the heading. Good work on pressing forward on this! DanHobley (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Archbishop Ussher
I've just expanded the list a little. Also, added a section on Geochronology. On that note, It's been nagging at me for a while that Archbishop Ussher's 4004BC estimate of the age of the Earth maybe deserves a place on this list. His estimate is certainly the first "serious", quantitative analysis of the age of the Earth. But equally, it's not really science!

Basically, I'm conflicted on this. I think it would be interesting to have on the page, but I also feel like somehow it's inappropriate. What does anyone else think? DanHobley (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Was it published as a manuscript? The Legend   of Zorro  08:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. Annales Veteris Testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti, una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Aegyptiacarum chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad Maccabaicorum initia producto. ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world, the chronicle of Asiatic and Egyptian matters together produced from the beginning of historical time up to the beginnings of Maccabes"). See Ussher chronology. DanHobley (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting (though I have no idea either way if it belongs here). The Legend   of Zorro  15:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Article rescue
I am attempting to rescue this article by
 * Proposing objective list inclusion criteria (see top of Talk), and
 * Filtering the list entries to obey these criteria.

Editors are welcome to help with either or both of these. The current state of the article is not final: I've commented out all of the list entries and am starting to bring them back one at a time if they match the criteria.

What I've done so far: I've scanned the list and brought back entries that are either subjects of their own stand-alone WP article, or are topics in an existing WP article. Simple mentions in a WP don't count. I've scanned the list as far as the "Structural Geology" section, but I have run out of time. I can do more editing in 12-24 hours.

Please feel free to continue to rescue individual list entries, or add new ones. Or please comment on or improve the list inclusion criteria. Let's try to rescue this article together! — hike395 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * First off, what reliable secondary or tertiary sources are present that would validate this as anything other than an WP:OR/Wp:Synth list? The sources that are currently placed in the lede need to be placed so its clear what entries are from each. The scope of the article title "geology" already places this into the realm of unrealistic, as Geology is a massive umbrella term that actually has very few unifying characters between subdisciplines say minerology and paleontology.-- Kev min  § 18:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally if we are to follow the precedent set at Talk:Titus_(dinosaur) we should NOT be editing this at all until resolution is reached at the AFD
 * The "article for deletion" template currently placed at the top of the article states "Feel free to improve the article ..." and this is supported (and encouraged) by Guide to deletion. GeoWriter (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)