Talk:List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein

Merger
Question: Do we want to drop Einstein's non-scientific work in this merger or keep it? I would favor keeping it and making the list a full list of Einstein's works. Also, the Works by Albert Einstein article includes English translations of many of the German article titles, which we should retain in the merger. Kaldari (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would prefer not to include the non-scientific writings here, to keep the focus tight and the article within size bounds. Even now, the article is 79 kb, and I still have 80-some scientific references to add. so the final list might end up being 110 kb.  The Schilpp reference lists roughly 160 non-scientific works, which would expand the list by at least 50% beyond that.  I also would like to include a line of commentary about each scientific work (or at least the really major ones) and I agree that we should keep English translations of the titles; so that seems to make our space constraints rather severe, don't you think?


 * Maybe the thing to do is not merge the articles and keep Works by Albert Einstein as a parent article, with a summary of the scientific articles and a full listing of the non-scientific ones? Merger was just a reflex thought, once I discovered the Works article this morning.   I've already copied over all the urls for the scientific works, so at least that part of the merger is done.  Willow (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I see what you mean. Here's my suggestion then. Limit this article to scientific works and merge the books back into the "Works by Einstein" section of the main Einstein article (which someone was kind enough to delete!). I think we could get away with just mentioning that he wrote lots of other stuff as well, but the books and scientific papers are obviously important. Kaldari (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * Should I split the list into journal articles, books and translations?
 * I think the answer to this should be based on whether users would want the information organized that way. I don't do much scientific research, but I'm not sure that the genre distinction is as relevant in science as it might be in other fields. It seems to me that chronology and topic (general relativity, optics) might be more relevant to users. These are my initial thoughts, anyway. Perhaps best to ask a scientist or historian of science. Awadewit | talk  02:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Should I put all the publications in the citation template format, for the convenience of people who would like to cite these works on Wikipedia?
 * I dislike the citation templates because they don't follow any established citation format that I am aware of (APA, Chicago, MLA, etc.), so I find them confusing and annoying (the bolded volume number really bugs me, but that might just be me). However, they may be easier to use for most editors.


 * The book templates are poorly designed (they restrict the information that can be included), but this page is mostly filled with journal articles, so perhaps that is less of a problem. Are citations really going to be added to the page, that this is a concern? I can only imagine that this is why you would use the templates. Awadewit | talk  02:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * One advantage of the table approach is that I could add a column for classifying and sorting the publications by subject, e.g., special relativity, general relativity, statistical mechanics, quantum theory, etc.
 * This sounds intriguing, but I would have to see how it looks. :) Awadewit | talk  02:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize that I need to add explanatory text, to put the information in context. I can definitely write a lead section describing roughly the types of publications that Einstein wrote and why they're important. But it'd be also nice to have separate sections for each type, e.g., general relativity publications, describing in more detail what Einstein accomplished in that field. But to do that, it seems like I would have to break up the list into those sections?
 * You could also have two lists: a chronological list and a topical list. See List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven, which has his compositions organized by opus number and by instrument (other composers have such lists split between multiple pages because they have so many compositions - another option).


 * See List of works by William Monahan for a good example of a Wikipedia annotated bibliography. The German list of papers that you link to in the "External links" section is a true annotated bibliography - it has little descriptions of each paper. That is nice. I don't suppose we could rip that off? (Your own topical divisions could be viewed as OR.) Awadewit | talk  02:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Questions, suggestions, ruminations:
 * Why are the works numbered? Are these numbers like opus numbers? Do they correspond to something? If so, there should be an explanatory note about that.
 * Apparently, on these types of lists, we aren't supposed to repetitively link names like "Einstein" or the names of the journals (I did it for List of works by Joseph Priestley and people came by and took them all out.)
 * Is it necessary to list "Einstein" as the author every time? See my solution for Priestley.
 * Should you alert readers to the fact that the PDFs really are in German with that little tag?
 * EX: Babelon, Jean-Pierre. Châteaux de France au siècle de la Renaissance. Paris: Flammarion/Picard, 1989. ISBN 208012062X.
 * I saw somewhere a script or code or something that alerted readers to the size of the PDF document - would that be nice to include?
 * Should there be translations of all of the titles of the papers?
 * Is the definition of "scientific writings" too broad? Should it, perhaps, not include translations (which Einstein did not write) and review essays?
 * I think that WP:FL reviewers like images - I was asked to add images to the Priestley list of works at FLC. Are any of Einstein's papers in the public domain? Is there an Einstein image that you could add?

I hope this was helpful. Most of these questions are just me thinking aloud - wondering what would be best - not me knowing. :) Awadewit | talk  02:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet more questions

 * Do you think translations of the paper titles are necessary? I don't really know, but it is a question that might be raised at FLC. Awadewit (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think that the page should be called "List of scientific publications of Albert Einstein"? There must be unpublished scientific writings (I think I saw some at one of the websites), but this article only lists the publications. Small detail. Awadewit (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Some reviewers at FLC might object to the bullet-point chronology in the lead, but I think it works well. I know you can explain its function well, so I wouldn't worry. Awadewit (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

General comments

 * Thanks for looking it over, Headbomb! :) I'll try to address your suggestions below. Willow (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The introduction is kinda long. I think it would be better if everything including and after "The following chronology" would be in its own section titled Chronology or something like that.


 * I followed your advice and split the lead into two sections, the initial overview, and a new "Chronology and major themes" section. Willow (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For citation templates, you can check the Citation template list to see if there are some you like.


 * I originally had the entire table in citation templates, but there's actually a limit on how many citation templates you can have on a single Wikipedia page. Unfortunately, that limit is around 300, which is slightly less than the number of Einstein's publications, so the bottom publications never showed up.  I prefer the present sortable table format, since people can group articles by common topics, or common journals, or whatever. Willow (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What does "Index" refer to?


 * I've explained that now in a footnote, although it was there in the last paragraph just before the Tables. The Index numbers are those assigned in the scientific bibliography of Einstein published by Schilpp. Willow (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but if they do not have any other significance than "This is how Schilpp ordered them", then they don't really say anything important about Einstein's publications and should probably bite the dust. And you gain some table space which is really needed.Headbomb (&tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; · &kappa;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&rho;&iota;&beta;&sigmaf;) 20:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * English translations are definitaly a must have. Keep them.


 * OK, will do! :) Willow (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Consider giving merging the translations in one cell (break and italicise?) because there are a lot of information to be crammed in there. This looks much nicer and is easier to read:

Headbomb (&tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; · &kappa;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&rho;&iota;&beta;&sigmaf;) 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate where you're coming from, and I thought about doing just that; the idea of a different font for the translated title is also worth considering. But I prefer keeping the titles and their English translations in separate columns.  It's easier to search for an English title that way, and it makes better use of vertical space, because the title and its translation will be roughly the same length.  For me, it's also easier to scan down a column of purely English titles, rather than alternating between languages.


 * Then perhaps the translation first in italics, with the original title under? I am still of the opinion that a single cell for the title is better, since you'd end up reading long texts crammed in small horizontal space. This is ugly

This is better.

Remember, horizontal space is more needed than vertical space. You can only fit so much horizontally, but you can fit everything you want vertically. Anyway, your call.Headbomb (&tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; · &kappa;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&rho;&iota;&beta;&sigmaf;) 03:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, and I hope that you like the new, improved article! :) Willow (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wording about effects of special relativity
A technical question for the experts out there? My understanding of special relativity is that time dilation and length contraction are real effects, and not merely optical illusions due to the finite propagation speed of light. I do understand that lengths and time intervals depend on the observer's reference frame, and that the only observer-independent (which might be thought of as "real") invariant is ds2. But within a given reference frame, the rod is shorter and the clock does tick more slowly, they don't merely appear to be/do so, right? For example, it's not an optical illusion that unstable particles live longer in our reference frame when they're moving close to the speed of light. Have I understood that correctly, and more importantly, how should we explain it to the reader? Any and all insights are welcome! :) Willow (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's correct what you say. However, is this the right article to explain those things? We have got already the articles introduction to special relativity, special relativity and history of special relativity, which deal with those subjects. --D.H (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

They're not optical illusions, but they're not "real" in a deep sense. Properties such as proper time (e.g. decay half-life) are invariant, thus they do not actually change with motion. What changes is how they are described in a relatively moving frame of reference; the apparent slow-down/contraction does not describe a physical (absolute) condition, so it is misleading to describe it as such. (Adding the word "apparent" is sufficient to tip off the reader.) A particle actually "lives" in its own frame, to which we must refer for a proper description.

Table layout?
We should open a discussion about table layout. I'm open to re-vamping the table layout, and I agree with people who'd like more horizontal space for the title, and for the classification/notes. But I'd like to keep the translation separate from the original title, and the columns should be sort-able; is that possible with the Episode list layout? The sortable-column thing is more important to me than the separate-translation thing. Everyone's ideas should be heard! :) Willow (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this?


 * I can't find a way to make the inner borders dissapear tho. That would probably be the best solution. Although that still loses sortability. It's up to you. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 00:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I realized that. I'm beginning to believe, though, that sortability of the English translations (which are so variable anyway) is less important than the layout of all the references, as you originally suggested. One suggestion, though: put the box only around the translation, not the original text, as I did already (albeit in blue). Willow (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

How does this look to you? Willow (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I would advised against colors though (unless it's the same as the background, or a slightly different hue than background). Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 04:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened to only the translations in boxes, not original title? Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 09:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Boxes needs to have thinner borders.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 09:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks tip top! Altough now I'm concerned about some publications having translations and original titles in the same box (original title last). See Schilpp CP2 amongsts others.


 * We must not be seeing the same table — maybe it's a browser/reloading/margin issue? My version of Schilpp 2 is perfectly correct.  Willow (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks fine now. Guess i read too fast or something.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 11:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it was just a browser-reload-kind-of-thing — or a mischievous poltergeist? ;) Thanks so much for the support, Head, and the good ideas.  I think the table is much better now. :) Willow (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No probs. BTW, as a result of your feedback for the List of baryons, when tackling spin, I decided to bring back isospin, and expanded flavour quantum numbers, charge and much more. Drop by when you have time. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 11:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Forbidden libks
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/papers/1905_17_891-921.pdf
 * You don't have permission to access /annalen/history/papers/1905_17_891-921.pdf on this server.
 * Apache/1.3.9 Server at www.Physik.Uni-Augsburg.DE Port 80

--Evgen2 (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in 2024 and the URL you has put (http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/papers/1905_17_891-921.pdf) it no longer exists, so as your comment is from 14 years ago idk what happened next, but know that regardless of whatever it is, be *careful* for that the links (or URLs) don't be retired or in anyway taken down out of blue. 177.105.90.14 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and well done
Just wanted to pass along a "thank you" to the folks who put in the hard work making this article. I had what I thought was an obscure question, and three clicks later I have my answer. Well done. Garamond Lethe 23:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. 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 tag to http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/einstein_knawp_181_696_15.pdf
 * Added tag to http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/einstein_pr_37_780_31.pdf
 * Added tag to http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mechanics/einstein_bams_37_39_35.pdf
 * Added tag to http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/einstein_tj_5_16_46.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090608184607/http://bibnetwiki.org/wiki/Category%3AAlbert_Einstein_Paper to http://bibnetwiki.org/wiki/Category%3AAlbert_Einstein_Paper

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) 13:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. 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/20160305141815/http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/index.php?id=11&PPN=PPN235181684_0097&DMDID=DMDLOG_0009&L=1 to http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/index.php?id=11&PPN=PPN235181684_0097&DMDID=DMDLOG_0009&L=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305014925/http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/index.php?id=11&PPN=PPN235181684_0102&DMDID=DMDLOG_0039&L=1 to http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/index.php?id=11&PPN=PPN235181684_0102&DMDID=DMDLOG_0039&L=1

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) 16:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Empty span tags
I'm puzzled by all the empty span tags in this article.  even appears twice. What are these for? Are they necessary? Maproom (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)