Talk:List of textbooks in electromagnetism

Split from Maxwell's equations
I didn't write any of this content. The idea was also proposed by user:Fgnievinski and others here. If there is a strong consensus to merge it back we can always revert the changes and redirect this article back to Maxwell's equations. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 08:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Books for which I cannot even find a review or notable mention
Title says all, remove from article to put here for now. If you can find reviews or recommendations for these books, please fill free to add back to the article. Also feel free to expand this list if you are not sure if a book is notable. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Has there been any development on this in the last three years? Also, where do we search for book reviews or recommendations? I was about to add the textbook by Ulaby and Ravaioli, Fundamentals of Applied Electromagnetics (8th ed.), but I couldn't find reviews or recommendations for it. However, it's possible that I just don't know where to look. It's a fantastic book in my opinion and I'm eager to get it onto the main list. -- QB2k (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar with search phrase "[author] [title] review" gives me two reviews, that have appeared in:
 * International Journal of Electrical Engineering & Education 36 (1), 83, 1999
 * CIT. Journal of Computing and Information Technology 8 (1), 83-85, 2015
 * I cannot share the links because I am on mobile device, but hope you find them. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Oleg D. Jefimenko
Does anyone know what's going on with this author? He has one book in the graduate section that I believe is self-published. Should it be excluded from the list? Footlessmouse (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * An earlier edition of the book was published in 1966 in New York not by the author, according to Griffiths' E&M, 4th ed., page 450. Nerd271 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, good to know, it can probably be added back citing Griffiths. I've done what I can to bring this article up to featured list standards. I am not sure if it would ever qualify, though. TBH, I think it would have been a lot easer to have our three textbook list articles combined into one List of physics textbooks, which would be a nice clean subpage of physics education. Footlessmouse (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, I may propose we split these up and rearrange everything creating two new pages List of undergraduate physics textbooks and list of graduate physics textbooks, each of which I think would make significant list articles with plenty of content and there are plenty of secondary sources to use. Each of these lists can redirect to the undergraduate article and a hat note can point to the graduate article. Footlessmouse (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * what do you think of this idea? It would allow us to include tables for general physics in the undergrad page and particle physics, condensed matter, cosmology, etc. for the graduate page. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That does not sound like a bad idea. That would make Wikipedia more useful to students. But redirecting to the the appropriate sections of an article is better. Nerd271 (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , of course, I have started a very rough draft in userspace for this User:Footlessmouse/Graduate textbooks and I want to move that to list of graduate physics textbooks in a bit. We can then move one of these pages to List of undergraduate physics textbooks and fix the redirect to point to a section, then merge the other two lists. They all go best to the undergrad page as there are way more undergrads than grad, but they'll point to the right section. I think it will all go smoothly, as there is not that much content in them all. I've already transferred over the content of this article and want to begin building it out. Feel free to join or post comments if you wish, thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove further reading
Does anyone object to removing the further reading section? It is a link farm of non-notable books. There are simply way too many textbooks out there for all of them to be added to the page, that is why there needs to be some kind of minimum notability requirement. My proposed minimum notability requirement is the existence of a single, non-trivial review or a published recommendation from a notable person. It may be contentious, so I am posting here. This may be something worth opening up a broader RFC on, but I will wait for responses from editors that watch this page first. If opening up a request for comment, it would read "Should books which have never received a review or notable recommendation of any kind be listed on textbook lists on broad topics such as electromagnetism, where there are many hundreds or thousands of such books?" I personally think that adding those books to the list is counter the page's purpose on Wikipedia, which is to show readers some of the most common and respected books on the subject that may be used as authoritative references. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Table removed from engineering section. Graduate and undergraduate headings were merged in physics section.
I removed table from engineering section and rearranged books based on 3 levels: undergraduate, graduate, and computational. some undergraduate books I added are at intermediate level (e.g. Ramo-Whinnery-VanDuzer, Jordan-Balmain). I also add some of the other important textbooks in applied electromagnetism with their reviews in graduate and computational books. Graduate textbooks are all relatively generic and analytical. I did not remove any book. I also merged graduate and undergraduate headings in physics textbooks section. LEATHERFACE (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)