Talk:List of important publications in mathematics/Archive 1

Name change?
Why the name change? Listing 'all and any' publications isn't so reasonable.

Charles Matthews 09:35, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Merging lists
I have taken the existing list that was a sub-section in List of mathematics history topics and attached it to this article (removing Elements to avoid duplication). I have left this as a pure list - others can add summaries in the style of the Elements section if they wish - my own opinion is that this duplicates the contents of the articles themselves, and so List of ... pages should just be pure lists. Gandalf61 15:25, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

What about works that are very important but do not qualify as publications? For example, Thurston's Princeton lecture notes. It created new areas and introduced many breakthroughs, some of which are not clearly understood still. C S

Formatting
Can we use just one system of formatting entries on this page? Having half the entries in one format and half in another makes it hard to read. I've marked this article as needing cleanup. -- Fropuff 04:32, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)


 * Made format of all entries consistent with format of majority, and removed cleanup notice. Gandalf61 10:21, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Goal of this list?
A rather bold question: what is this list good for (other than honoring great authors and works)? Isn't it more reasonable to have literature (of which there is usually a lot, even if one only considers the great contributions!) within the respective (main) articles? Or is there an effort to create an external bibliography to avoid repetition? I greatly agree to having good lists of commented references for all math topics, but is it helpful to have all in one list? Won't it just explode?

To substantiate this, consider the list of category books given at topos theory. Quite some of them are to be considered "great" and they are very different in purpose and targeted audience, but all of them would be classified as "introduction" here. And of course, there are varying opinions on the quality of a book. Mac Lane is wonderfully to the point and quite condensed (compare Johnstone), but I would consider Lawvere/Rosebrugh as an easier introduction and Borceux as a better comprehensive reference work. Shall this list contain all these books only as introductions? When adding works for the other types of publications, the category theory literature alone would make quite a long list. Can the completion of the present article thus really be a goal to pursue?

Maybe a list of "famous historical math publications" would yield an interesting subset of the present list? --Markus Krötzsch 20:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That the publications are 'notable' is always implicit. Well, this list was created by analogy with some other lists, for other academic areas. I think it is supposed to list the 'breakthrough' papers; that means it might help someone who wanted a list of the 50 most important theorems of all time ... Anyway if someone wants to build up such a list, it will do little harm. Charles Matthews 23:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * As the intro. says, this list was originally intended to be "a list of important publications in mathematics, organized by field". It is part of a series of "List of publications in ..." articles (see the "Lists of publications in science" category). It was supposed to be an index to other articles rather than just a list of titles i.e. each of the publications in the list should have its own main article (although this rule was never explicitly stated, and has not always been followed by subsequent editors). What qualifies as an "important publication" could be debated endlessly. There was a separate list of historical publications articles at one point, but it was merged into this list, as there seemed little point in having two potentially overlapping lists. If the number of articles on publications in any one topic area became large enough, then it could be factored out into its own separate ""List of publications in ..." article. Gandalf61 10:52, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for additions
How about the following publications? EGA and SGA by Grothendieck et al for algebraic geometry; "Topology from the Differentiable Viewpoint" by Milnor for differential topology; "Topology" by Munkres for general topology; "A Course in Arithmetic" by Serre and/or "Basic Number Theory" by Weil for number theory; "Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces" by Halmos for linear algebra; "Modern Algebra" by van der Waerden for abstract algebra; "Elements of Set Theory" by Enderton or "Set Theory" by Jech for set theory. Some of the books are important as standard and popular introductions to the subject and some for historical significance (e.g. Grothendieck's works). Thoughts? nparikh 18:58, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes to: EGA, SGA, the Milnor book, the Weil book, the Halmos book, the German version of Modern Algebra. The rest, I think, don't have enough innovation (the Serre book is very good, but not very original). Well, I guess that's true in the case of the set theory, but there I'm not an expert. Charles Matthews 19:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should there be a "List of textbooks in mathematics" page to avoid clutter on this one? No matter how good they are, textbooks usually aren't groundbreaking (perhaps something like MacLane's categories book would belong here). I think there ought to be a page that lists, for example (and aside from those already mentioned): MacLane/Birkhoff, Hungerford, Lang, Weibel, Rudin, Ahlfors, Milnor, Hartshorne, Griffiths/Harris. I don't know if this is the page for them. Thorne 16:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I see the list as a temporary stage before moving to article on each publication and the categories system (See WikiProject Science pearls) . The structure of lists is used since it is more suitable for information gathering. Therefore, please add the textbooks you mentioned. At later stage, they will be categorized with the proper importance. APH

I think Diophantus' Arithmetica is very important, because Fermat studied it a lot. Timothy Clemans 00:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

More suggestions: Differential geometry and Lie groups
I notice that there differential geometry and Lie groups are rather under-represented here (particularly in relation to algebraic geometry). Arguably Gaston Darboux's massive treatise on surfaces should be included, as this is perhaps the most comprehensive culmination of 19th century investigations of the classical differential geometry initiated by Euler and Gauss:

As for differential geometry from a modern perspective, the most influential book I can name are the two volumes of Kobayashi and Nomizu (originally published in 1963): This might serve as the differential equivalent of Hartshorne's Algebraic Geometry (which, I am happy to say, is on the list already).

Lie groups are trickier, but I nominate Lie and Engel's treatise: Elie Cartan may also deserve a place, if anyone cares to single out a book or paper in his "Groupes finis et continus..." series. Chevalley has arguably set the modern standard with his two-volume work on Lie groups, and may also be considered for inclusion here.
 * Lie, S. and Engel, F. "Theorie der Transformationsgruppen", 3 volumes, B.G. Teubner, Verlagsgesellschaft, mbH, Leipzig, 1888-1893.

Any thoughts? Silly rabbit 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree re Darboux and Lie, less sure about Kobayashi as I've not encountered these books. --Salix alba (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, it is the first sizeable publication dealing with differential geometry from the principal bundle point of view. Kobayashi, who had worked closely with Charles Ehresmann on the theory of connections, seems to have been the first to bring this body of work to the forefront of modern differential geometry.  Then again, if you're not familiar with the books, I suppose they aren't as significant as I thought.  So, nevermind.  A related note: In that case, is there no "Hartshorne" for differential geometry?  (Obviously not Spivak ;-)  Silly rabbit 19:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for removals and reorganizations
GEB is a very interesting book (it had a marked influence on my own thinking when I was younger), but it does not belong here. It could be considered an important publication in computer science, but not in mathematics. BTW, the computer science list is much more readable and better organized than this one.

The game theory field has lumped combinatorial game theory together with economic game theory without making distinguishing them at all. It should be noted somewhere that these two are in fact two completely different fields with little relation to each other.
 * Feel free to uapdate the list. Please keep commenting about the changes in the talk page. APH 05:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree with the proposal to remove the GEB entry from this list. GEB is an exposition of the work of Kurt Gödel in mathematics and logic. The computer science stuff is included to illustrate Gödel's arguments and conclusions, to make them more understandable. GEB is not primarily about computer science, any more than it is primarily about art, music or typography - they are secondary topics used to illuminate its main theme, which is mathematical. By all means feel free to re-organise or add to the list, but please do not remove GEB. Gandalf61 11:44, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gandalf61's comments: while the book can be perceived in many ways, the exposition of the Incompleteness Theorem - meaning, proof and relevance - is primary. Hv 13:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree with both Gandalf61 and Hv. GEB is first and foremost a book about AI. That is its central theme. Gödel's work is woven into this because Hofstadter feels it has profound implications for AI (more correctly, he believes that "strange loops" are essential to cognition, and that Gödel's Incompleteness Proofs are prime examples of such). It is my belief that anyone who thinks that AI is used to "illustrate Gödel's arguments and conclusions" has fundamentally misunderstood what GEB is about. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm not the only one is of that view. Hofstadter himself tends to get upset when people suggest that GEB is merely an original exposition of Gödel's proofs (he has written on this several times, even in the preface to the 20th anniversery edition of GEB, if I remember correctly). However, regardless of what the book is about, it is an indisputable fact that the impact GEB has had is on computer science and computer scientists, not mathematics and mathematicians. GEB suggests no new mathematics, and has not inspired new generations of mathematicians in any particular way (other than making clear how interesting mathematics can be, but that can be said of any number of books, many which have little to do with mathematics per se -- Stephen Hawkins' books could be said to be important publications in mathematics by that standard) but it really _does_ suggest new approaches in AI, cognitive science, etc. and this is where it has earned the title as a classic. Remember that this is a list of "important publications". GEB simply cannot be considered as such in the field of mathematics, no matter how central mathematics is to the exposition of its ideas.

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 08:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Related AFD
Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology (2nd nomination) Kappa 08:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Entries with no description or importance sections
I have deleted all entries that do not give a description or details of importance and moved them here.

Universal algebra


 * Wolfgang Wechler.
 * Springer-Verlag.

Description:

Importance:

Order theory

Lattice Theory, Garret Birkhoff, 1935.

Note I have removed the heading tags to format this section here better. Feel free to move them back if you can give a proper description and importance section. There are many entries with a description section but no importance section. Perhaps these should be moved here too, but then most of the importance sections are, in my opinion, quite useless. It is not sufficient to just state "introduction" without saying why it is a better introduction than others and whether it has had a wider influence, or to state "influence" without explaining what the influence is or was. It is precisely this that makes this list break the NPOV criteria. --Bduke 21:54, 13 November 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 00:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Broken Link
The link to an online version of Gödel's paper is broken at the moment. That page is available through the Internet Archive, there is also a modernized, incomplete (pun intended) translation available (that is linked from Gödel's incompleteness theorems), and other sources. Although the modernized notation is easier for me to read, that version isn't finished and is certainly less "official". I think having an online link here to some translation of this paper is invaluable. Does anyone have preferences on a translation to choose? skip (t / c) 02:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Additions to Number Theory
I had a few suggestions to be added to the number theory section and thought I'd post them here first (though I'm pretty sure they should be on the list). 1) Tate's Thesis for influence. 2) Jacquet-Langlands for influence. and 3) Wiles' Fermat paper for breakthrough and influence. Cheers. RobHar 01:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By all means add them. This list could definitely use some expansion, especially for significant publications from 1950 and later.  Myasuda 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just added them. Sorry to take so long. RobHar 18:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Titles in italics or not?
There doesn't appear to be a consensus on whether or not publication titles on this page should appear in italics or not. Any opinions? I guess I'd suggest no italics. RobHar 18:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Books should be in italics, papers in quotation marks, per the Manual of Style. Kaldari (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Various proposals

 * 1) Remove the Importance row of the publication entries.  While most of the Wikipedia lists of publications in science have them, I don't feel they add much value. The few Importance rows in this article that have content beyond the subjective pigeon-holing into the Topic creator, Breakthrough, etc categories could just be subsumed into the Description area.  A well-written description should make the Importance row irrelevant.
 * 2) Remove the publications by Edmonds (Paths, trees, and flowers), Cook (The complexity of theorem proving procedures), and Karp (Reducibility among combinatorial problems).  These are already present in List of important publications in computer science, and while the various science lists don't need to be non-overlapping, these papers belong more to the domain of theoretical computer science than mathematics.  If the consensus is to keep these entries, then the Edmonds paper needs a description.
 * 3) Find more appropriate section titles than Elementary algebra and Abstract algebra.  Perhaps the category for Grothendieck's Tohoku paper could be Homological algebra . . . though this might be too restrictive for a section title.
 * 4) More entries are needed, especially in Analysis and Topology.  This can certainly be done without diminishing the overall quality of the current list.
 * &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with points 1, 2, and 4. For 3, I would suggest putting the Grothendieck paper under Category theory.  Is that completely offbase?  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 04:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not off-base. But since I just noticed that the Abstract algebra article has a link to the Abstract algebra section in this article, I think I'll hold off on changing the section titles until there's more feedback.  For now,  I'll just proceed with items 1 and 2.  Thanks. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and introduced some sub-sectioning. Entries formerly under Elementary algebra now falls under the Theory of equations.  If anyone doesn't like it, feel free to revert.  I've made a concession to the link from Abstract algebra by leaving this as a subsection title. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Calculus Made Easy?
I believe Calculus Made Easy, the 1910 book by Silvanus P. Thompson, should be added to the Calculus section. It fits the introduction criteria described in the beginning of the article, and is considered a classic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_Made_Easy Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be appropriate in the Calculus section, which is intended for research breakthroughs of the highest order. Maybe one could make a case for placing it in the Textbooks section, but I personally don't think the one reference at Calculus Made Easy (the positive review at ) makes all that much of a case for its importance. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a couple of google books making reference to its status as a classic. Macroeonomic Theory: A Short Course (http://books.google.com/books?id=uE7qAanP0MsC&pg=PR13-IA6&lpg=PR13-IA6&dq=%22calculus+made+easy%22+classic&source=web&ots=Y3fGx-2Dy1&sig=7CIUsoLtOL05l-LbCo3CqBBoHg8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result) and Advanced RenderMan: Creating CGI for Motion Pictures (http://books.google.com/books?id=6_4VaJiOx7EC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=%22calculus+made+easy%22+classic&source=web&ots=cpYpKSMLF0&sig=9dKJ_HagEt2qQES6rPBrYQvZJdY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result). Unfortunately, I don't think most else of what I have been able to find aren't good references; mostly sites trying to sell the book... wait, I just found something else by Reed College. http://academic.reed.edu/quantitative_skills/general.html Scroll down to the books section. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be a classic, but that does not make it important. --Lambiam 08:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

what about Residues and duality?
I believe it should be added to this list. 85.64.96.38 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Who's important list?
I object to this article on the grounds that there is no citation after 'Important publications'. Where has this list come from? It doesn't matter whether the authors spent 10 years carefully constructing the best list they could, wikipedia is not for new work, it should be referencing a published list of important publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.104.51 (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a serious problem. I am not sure how easy it would be to fix. The Opera WikiProject got around this at List of important operas by taking other people's lists of operas and merging them. I don't know whether such a procedure is possible here. Does anyone know of lists of publications in mathematics (other than this one, and other than comprehensive ones such as MathSciNet or Zentralblatt)? Ozob (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt there would be many/any books out there that provide lists of important publications past the 19th century. For each field (or subfield) it might be possible to find journal articles that mention important publications. On the other hand, these might list many more publications than we'd want to include here. Though, I am a mathematician, not a historian of math, so there may be great resources out there of which I'm unaware.
 * Perhaps one could use books to make up lists for pre-20th century math, and find some list of important results in more recent math, and list the articles that proved those results here. RobHar (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Landmark Writings in Western Mathematics 1640-1940 by Ivor Grattan-Guinness might be very helpful for the time period it covers. I'm not sure of a good list for more recent work. LeSnail (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

New WikiProject
We would like to announce a new WikiProject, WikiProject Bibliographies. We hope it will be of interest to editors of this page. The project was started by Mike Cline (talk) after the 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 (important) publications on  or any list of works, is by any other name, a Bibliography. Bibliographies within WP are specifically identified as a form of List in Manual of Style/Lists, are subject to List notability guidelines and Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. Check out Bibliography of biology to see how this page could look. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I welcome any effort by the Bibliography WikiProject to write a Bibliography of mathematics, but as I explain the next section I think they should not usurp this existing page to do so. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Move
I recently moved this page to Bibliography of mathematics.

What reasons not to do this are there?Curb Chain (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If the Bibliographies WikiProject wants to write a "Bibliography" of mathematics, they are welcome to do so, but I think they should not seize an existing page to do it. This page was founded in 2004 and is thus very well-established in its present title. How long has the Bibliography WikiProject been in existence? My point is that the naming preferences of a new project are not on their own enough to override the existing consensus that this page is appropriate. In fact this page just passed an AFD on October 1, which is also evidence it is appropriate. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the many such different afd's these kinds of articles have gone thru (including Articles for deletion/List of important publications in statistics (which I just found today)), and the half of the other articles were renamed without opposition, either the articles should be consistent, or that none of these articles should be renamed to Bibliographies, and probably certain areas of the articles should not be changed to reflect that.Curb Chain (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note also that the article existed first as List of publications in mathematics via a unilateral and undicussed move by an administrator via so this article has not existed since 2004 at this title, albeit this 2006 move is not as huge as 2011.Curb Chain (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There are various fora that you are a part of in which I have explained some reasons as to why I oppose the move you are suggesting. Additionally, take a look for example at the current prototype for the Bibliography project: Bibliography of biology. The first sentence of the article is: "Bibliography of biology is a list of notable works on the subject of Biology organized by subdiscipline.", which, aside from the strange grammatical construction, causes the following reaction: "Okay, well then why isn't it called 'List of notable works in Biology'?". This is a list of important publications of mathematics and so that should be the title. RobHar (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am just looking at this particular article. If other articles were renamed, they can be considered separately. I would be fine with the option of not renaming existing articles, and allowing the Bibliographies project to write new "bibliographies" separately. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For a more concrete point, the title "Bibliography of mathematics" sound like "List of publications in mathematics" - like it can include everything published in the area. The present title makes it clear that the list is limited to just some particularly important publications. If we were going to make a "bibliography of mathematics" I would do it in project: namespace so we don't have to worry about notability issues. For example we could in principle gather all the references used in all math articles on Wikipedia. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand this point, and this is a problem. Apparently the only way to get around this is to also list redlinks so it does not appear as a category in another form.Curb Chain (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Move to Bibliography of mathematics. There is still no Verifiable sources for this list of Important, (even after the assurances given in AfD). Making it a Bibliography removes the constraints of POV/OR interpretations of Important, as well as the problems of "Trust me, Its obvious & WP:Common knowledge." Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:RM going on here, and I think it is premature to have one. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there obviously is, as the normal process of BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is being followed. Unless you are suggesting it should be taken through the process at WP:RM (which is for controvertial moves seeking a wider audience for dicussion). Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 06:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could clarify your point of view. When Bibliography of biology was renamed, you immediately claimed it had OR problems . How would renaming this list be different? RockMagnetist (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Changing the title would not remove any of the issues with notability, verifiability, or NPOV. Policy does not allow a list of all publications in mathematics, but it does allow a list of important ones. So the current name matches the policy better than the proposed name. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You should check date stamps first. My last comments there were on the 30th, the move occurred on the 31st. The Cited Author's book only contains 80 separate articles, how many are listed in this Article? and a Sourcebook?... well "There seems to be no consensus in the application of this term." so there should be at least something solid. I would imagine that there is something available to verify this list(as it stands). The OR problems are removed by it becoming a Bibliography insuch that a Bibliography is inclusive, whereas this list currently lists what each well intentioned editor thinks is "important". Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 20:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indiscriminate lists are routinely deleted because of WP:NOT. However there is a longstanding consensus that lists of "important" or "notable" things are OK as long as there are references to support the importance or notability. We cannot just make this an inclusive list of every publication in mathematics; there are thousands of such publications each year. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It would not be indiscriminant (unless you purposly include stuff from outside the field of mathematics) and No they dont need to show importance or notability in a bibliography. For example; Bibliography of fly fishing is mostly unlinked and has survived 2 AfD's. Entried do not have to be Bluelinked. Entries just need to be Cited to a source (to be verifiable as actually existing), thats what a Bibliography is! Make the list 'inclusive', because if it remains an 'exclusive' list it needs to be someone else providing the list, not WP Editors opinions of whats important. On a sidenote: "a longstanding consensus that lists of "important" or "notable" things are OK " ... not true. A search of "List of Important " shows most have been redirected to parent Articles. A quick search of "List of notable " finds most of them also redirected to not include the term Notable either. Consensus is for both nameing conventions to be redirected to show inclusive listings, not exclusive listings. If you make it a requirement for entries in this Bibliography to have Bluelink Articles, that show each entries Notability and "Importance", thats up to you. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstandings about WikiProject Bibliography
Please don't identify Curb Chain's actions with WikiProject Bibliographies. He is a loose cannon who in no way represents the views of the rest of us. I hope his actions will not prejudice editors against the WikiProject, the members of which are not a clique and do not wish to impose our policies on anyone. However, the project is potentially a good response to all these recent AfDs. Unlike "List of important X", "Bibliography" is a recognized form of list. Contrary to a popular impression, bibliographies do not have to be indiscriminate, or even very different from what you have now. In fact, WikiProject Science pearls, which crafted the template for your current inclusion criteria, is now a task force in WikiProject Bibliographies.

As for naming pages, we think the name of the page is much less important than what is on the page. Rob Har makes a good point about names in the previous section. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:47, 8 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) 00:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)