Template talk:List of publications intro

Important publications
Important publications are the core of every academic field. In that sense they have special status, so perhaps this is not an "average introduction." I am confused by Steinsky's apparently contradictory characterization that "these are introductions to average wikipedia articles." Perhaps he misspoke: Is it the articles being introduced that he's calling average or is it the introduction that he's calling average? - Do c  t  or  W  04:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Pages like List of publications in law (I did clearly state the Wikipedia articles, not the publications were average) have no distinguising features that require them to have special formating on the introduction. Joe D (t) 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls on rewording this template to make the criteria of entries to the lists of important publications rather tighter and better reflecting the notability criteria of WP. --Bduke 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur, this template should certainly be changed to bring it in line with policy, guidline, and style. --TeaDrinker 01:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

List of lists of important publications
Since this is now a subst-only template (which has already been subst'd everywhere in article space), we can no longer use Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:List of publications intro to see articles tagged with this template. So now consult Special:PrefixIndex/List of important publications in for a list of pages where this template was subst'd. (Well, until all the pages get mass-moved to some other naming scheme, which is probably coming eventually, and then their mass deletion after that — although I'm sure this template will get deleted before/as that happens.) See also Template:Important publications in science. - dcljr (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)