1300:
in the list should have an article. The real aim is to get a source that backs up the reason for inclusion - a source that comments on the publication's importance or influence for example. It may well be likely that an entry is not notable if the author does not warrant an article. The author should be notable because s/he wrote a notable publication that deserves to be in this list. However, there are many academics who warrant an article, yet do not yet have one. We should certainly link to sections of an article that say something of value about the publication, not just a mere mention. All the lists, even after all these years, still do not, at least in part, meet wikipedia guidelines. I think we can trim and add to this list, however, so that it does meet the guidelines. I will have another look at it in a few days. I have an important
Wikimedia Australia meeting today. --
1259:(Oxford, 1926) was more important. I will also delete Day and Underwood. I can find nothing that says it stands out as notable. An article in Analytical Chemistry (59, 1987, 829A - 835A) reports a survey of US Chemistry Departments. Day and Underwood is the 3rd most popular book (11.3%), below Harris (23.6%) and Skoog and West (31.1%). I know nothing of Electrochemistry. There is the claim that Bard and Faulkner is the most used text, but it is not sourced and would that make it notable for inclusion anyway. I will delete that one also. I can find no sources whatsoever other than book sales. I will consult some colleagues about
1211:
have significant problems with notability, or at least demonstration of notability through references. Chemistry is not unique in this and is in fact better in the ratio of references to publications. It is difficult to count the number of publications that have their own article. While going through the lists I came across several instances where I thought "Surely this must have an article" and indeed it did but it was not linked in the item on the list until I added it. This is odd, as having its own article is certainly the best way to demonstrate that the item is notable. Many list just get any redlink deleted rapidly. --
119:
92:
520:
241:
220:
330:
309:
510:
489:
129:
891:"massive impact", to suggest that we compare each book with what came before. I would retain Cotton and Wilkinson which greatly changed the teaching of inorganic chemistry by pioneering the integration of bonding theory and descriptive inorganic chemistry. Atkins on the other hand is more a continuation of a gradual development (among others: Moelwyn-Hughes, Glasstone and Lewis, Moore, Levine) so is more worthy of deletion.
340:
1567:. I agree with Bduke. This article is not a catalogue of textbooks, and we have agreed to list only the most notable and influential in each branch of chemistry. I have the first edition of this one, and while it is a well-written text that I might recommend in a class, it is not sufficiently outstanding to mention in an encyclopedia. Also there is a problem of COI, since the entry was first added by one of the authors.
1285:
rather short and could just as well be included as sections of the articles on their authors. And I think most of the other documents are probably mentioned in the articles on their authors - if not, we can always add sections on the documents. There are a few recent documents whose authors do not yet have articles, but perhaps the notability of the document is an argument for the notability of the author as well.
443:
418:
622:
604:
61:
1710:
although he does include papers by Lewis and by
Pauling. Also of course Leicester can be used to suggest new entries for the article. The preface says that he has favoured foundation papers and papers which include authors' statements of why they chose to do what they did. And avoided "selections that are almost entirely mathematical", such as the original Debye-Huckel paper.
32:
1805:
my absence. I have acted for several years as an unofficial coordinator of this list, pushing discussion of every new item to the talk page until consensus to keep it or remove it was reached. I think that kept our standards higher than some other lists, but recent work on other science lists, prompted by AfD discussions on them, has put them ahead of us.
922:
think Levine was later than Atkins' first edition and I recall it lead Moore to really make changes for the next edition, but this is just my memory. Glasstone was just terribly boring. I was brought up on it. Atkins was a breath of fresh air when I was teaching Phys Chem. We need sources. For Gibbs, we just need a better source, which should be findable.
1062:, which started these lists off. It is essentially inactive. It has a silly name that is confusing. It does no bring editors to this list. I am considering a different tack for it and hope to raise this more widely in a few days. I have also been examining the other lists and I will report the start to this in the table below.
1336:
think the articles need more information on the document to justify a link. This can be in the document on the author where the information is only a paragraph or three and there is only one author. I am not sure where we should link documents with co-authors of similar notability, such as the book by Cotton and
Wilkinson.
825:
of books have had such an influence. I have always thought that "Atkins" and "Cotton and
Wilkinson" had such an influence but it might just have been for my generation and other books have had a similar influence in other generations. As for the list of entries to be deleted, my list differs from yours. It would be:
1190:
as there are a lot of very old documents that are notable and have articles. Provisionally this table is showing that we do not have too many items in the list, but our criteria is somewhat tougher than others I think. I will get back to the list of 6 under discussion here when I have finished this survey. --
1804:
has been started and it is suggested that
Science pearls becomes a taskforce for that project. I am about to go on a wikibreak, "out bush" as we say in Australia, and my internet access may be poor and infrequent. I thought I would start a discussion here and hope that some people would contribute in
902:
Finally I question the necessity of sourcing an opinion for every book. Some sources are impressive, e.g. the
Stockholm Water Prize citation for Stumm and Morgan. But it is less clear for example that the opinion of a non-scientist such as Bill Bryson really adds to the reliability of the information
1384:
I sought the views of a colleague in medicinal chemistry regarding "The
Practice of Medicinal Chemistry", Camille Georges Wermuth editor. His reply is interesting: "It is one of a few in the area - nothing particularly notable - but then textbooks are often like that. For a more influential med chem
1189:
I will try to add to this in the next few days. "No. of articles" indicates the number of items in the list that actually have a wikipedia article. We should be aiming for all of them to have an article to indicate that all items are notable. That
Mathematics has the most articles is not surprising,
896:
I will accept your judgment to delete Bard and
Faulkner, and retain Hinshelwood as well as Stumm and Morgan (I don't know these 3 books very well). I agree that some organic texts should be deleted, but the choice would best be made by an organic chemist(s), again considering the impact of each book
1530:. There have been extensive discussions about the notability of general textbooks for the teaching of Physical Chemistry. Please look in the archives linked at the top of this page. This one is no better and no worse than many others, and it does not seem to have any really important influence. The
1320:
Linking to a section of an existing article (on the author for example) is a good idea, which will often be much faster than starting a new article on the document. Also the articles on the author are often longer and will give more context to the document. As a start I have linked Dalton's work to
1299:
I think I agree with you about publications needing an article. I was really only pointing out that many lists do indeed have that as an inclusion criteria. Lists like "Alumni of XXX" almost always only include people if they are notable enough to have an article. I do think however that more items
824:
Thanks for doing that and apologies for inactivity on this page for some time. I have no problem with the new truncated list of criteria, except that I might perhaps support under "influence" adding something like "or has had a massive influence on the teaching of chemistry". I think a small number
1284:
I agree with your decisions on deletion to date, and also with the decisions over the last year not to include certain texts. I am less supportive however of the idea that every document in the list needs its own article. The three articles we do have on documents by Boyle, Lavoisier and Gibbs are
1872:
4. I don't think the exact article name is critical, as long as the information remains available. Since some editors strongly object to the word "important" in the name, I think we can accommodate them by changing the name to "bibliography". Provided of course that we maintain inclusion criteria
1795:
and it has now been moved to a new title. The move was possibly inappropriate as there was no consensus anywhere and specifically there was no consensus of each of the individual list talk pages. I was, for example, going to start a discussion here. It was certainly premature. It is possible that
1210:
I have added 3 more lists to the table above. It is clear that there is significant variation between lists and also within lists. For the latter, for example, one section (sub-discipline) of the physics list gives a lot more entries but with no explanation of description or importance. All lists
1038:
Two years on we have just rejected the third consecutive new suggestion for textbooks: Cramer, Odian, Branch and Calvin. I think it is time to delete the six texts listed above as well for the reasons already discussed. (And I think 58.164... was BDuke who forgot to login that day? Geolocate says
921:
First, sources: You say "I would retain Cotton and
Wilkinson which greatly changed the teaching of inorganic chemistry by pioneering the integration of bonding theory and descriptive inorganic chemistry". How do we know this unless a source tells us so? I can not find a source on Atkins either. I
765:
New entries will be opened for debate on the talk page with Wikipedians asked to state whether the entry should be deleted or kept. This debate will be open for a month but may be closed after 10 days if clear consensus is reached. The debate should centre around whether the entry can be included
1335:
I looked through the whole list to find existing articles with enough info on the document to justify a link and found 3 more - the articles on Mendeleev and Pauling, and for Watson-Crick a substantial article on the DNA paper itself. So now we have 7 links to articles. For the other documents I
890:
Thanks for your comments. I agree with adding "or has had a massive influence on the teaching of chemistry". However this suggests that your two examples (Atkins, Cotton and Wilkinson) should be retained, contrary to your deletion list! Perhaps the criterion should be not "massive influence" but
1515:
This book covers all the major topics of Physical Chemistry for undergraduates. It contains 19 chapters and about 100 multimedia interactions. Since it is now published by the Authors and not a book company, the price is considerably lower than hard copy versions. In addition it is available in
929:
Third, Organic books. Yes, we need more advice, but I would still remove the word "Introduction" under "Importance" because it is pointing to a criteria that we no longer have. Anyway, I think the defense to keep them would be that they are reference. None of them is a standard year 2 text. For
1709:
The 1900-1950 source book contains 91 papers or selections from long papers, and no books. For this period our article now has only three books (Lewis, Pauling and Wilson, Pauling) and no papers at all. Therefore there is no overlap and Leicester cannot be used to justify the present entries,
805:
I think the above section reached a consensus five months ago to delete the "Introduction" and "Latest and Greatest" criteria. Since there is no further comment, I will take the initiative and remove these two criteria at the beginning of both the talk page and the article.
1516:
shorter modules at even lower prices: Thermodynamics (Chpt. 1-6); Electrochemistry (Chpt. 1,7,8); Chemical Kinetics (Chpt. 1, 9, 10); Quantum and spectroscopy (Chpt. 1, 11-14); Statistical Mechanics (Chpt.1, 15); Liquids, Solids and Transport properties (Chpt. 1, 16-19)
1254:
I am going to delete 6. I have been the main editor supporting it. I do indeed think it is important, but I have done an extensive search. It is mentioned several times, but not to the extent of it being more notable than others. Indeed I have found sources that say his
865:
I have to say that both of us have let the organic chemists off rather easily as some of those entries are close to being texts. For 4 of them, the word "introduction" should be removed from the "importance" section, as it should for the first Lavoisier entry.
925:
Second, I have changed my mind on Hinshelwood. I spent a couple of hours yesterday looking for sources. The only mention of the book is one sentence in his massive Royal Society Memoir and that saying more positive things about another book by him. It can
809:
The next step is to decide which publications to delete. The above discussion mentions the texts in physical(3), analytical, environmental and medicinal chemistry. Could we now have more comments on whether these six texts should be deleted?
1792:
42:
962:. Paragraph 2 describes the book and its influence, including the words "led to a fundamental shift in the way in which inorganic chemistry was studied". And yes, remove the word "introduction" as a description of books.
551:
769:
Articles from journals or review books can be included but they should be of very great significance. Journal titles alone should not be included and will be deleted without debate. Journal titles should be added to
1927:
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
1703:
I have found Leicester in our library. The title is actually Source book in chemistry 1900-1950, and he mentions an earlier “A source book in chemistry” by him and Klickstein for the period 1400-1900 which we don’t
1718:
Atomic and molecular structure – papers by (principal authors only) Fajans, Soddy, TW Richards, Honigschmid, Aston, Urey, Kossel, Lewis, Langmuir (2), Latimer, Sidgwick, Debye, Ingold, van Vleck, Condon, Pauling +
727:
There has been debate about policy for this page with a view to keeping it NPOV and the following items have received some support by consensus. If you want to edit the page please take note of these policies.
1722:
Physical chemistry (thermodynamics, electrolytes, kinetics) – papers by Ostwald, Nernst, Donnan, Giauque, Bjerrum, Lewis (+ Randall), Debye, Bjerrum, Bronsted, Hantzsch, Bodenstein, Semenoff, Eyring, Paneth
400:
185:
1350:
Good work. I think we should try to have an article on the Cotton and Wilkinson book, but we need to get the sources together first. The Maths people have articles for books of a similar notability. --
1657:
With the need to find sources for lists of publications as highlighted by deletion discussion on related lists, I asked a colleague who collects old books on chemistry and he came up with this list:-
862:
The first is not a text book in the accepted sense but a scholarly work that did have a great influence, although it needs sourcing. The second is rather beyond a text I think, and it is sourced.
795:
789:
783:
197:
102:
981:
OK, taking it slowly I have added the reference for C & W, removed "introduction" for the organic entries and modified the 3rd criteria. The list for deletion now seems to be:-
1509:
The latest version (electronic) of this popular undergraduate book in Physical Chemistry comes with embedded multimedia. Easy to use and navigate and integrated into the Internet.
586:
449:
423:
1385:
book you might consider Selective Toxicity by Adrien Albert". He is one of the founders of the field so it might be referenced as influential. I'll see if I can take a look. --
2020:
576:
1932:. 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.
2005:
390:
2025:
1960:
903:
about Gibbs. When we cannot find a useful source, I think the book (or paper) can be retained anyway if its importance is clear to the usual editors of this article.
175:
546:
2015:
1970:
202:
2000:
897:
relative to what went before. Lavoisier on the other hand I would leave alone, since an introduction to chemistry had much more impact in 1789 than more recently.
291:
1406:
I know nothing of medicinal chemistry books, but this comment would suggest that we include Albert rather than Wermuth. Note also that we have an article on
1929:
151:
1965:
1955:
1542:
sections above might be a copy of the official blurb for the book but I can not find them. This is just my feeling as they read like an official blurb. --
542:
533:
494:
1990:
732:
Books for inclusion can be added in the usual Knowledge (XXG) way by anyone editing the page. However it is expected that each entry should give a brief
281:
2035:
1055:
666:
1715:
The source book has four parts – techniques, general + physical, organic, biochemistry. For example Part II – General + physical chemistry contains:
672:
771:
1995:
1833:
1829:
1822:
1801:
1797:
1059:
1004:
but I would suggest we postpone doing the deletions to allow others to comment or find better references that show they meet the new criteria. --
257:
142:
97:
2010:
1985:
1534:
justification above makes not claim of importance. At this stage, I do not think that this entry can be retained. It also looks to me like the
1005:
2040:
1980:
1975:
930:
Lavoisier we could leave it in if we are adding the "massive impact on teaching" bit. I agree about "impact" rather than "influence". --
642:
1591:
248:
225:
2030:
1664:
Goodman, D. and Russell, C. A. 1996 Science in Europe: 1500-1800: A secondary sources anthology. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
366:
353:
314:
1661:
Goodman, D. and Russell, C. A. 1996 Science in Europe: 1500-1800: A primary sources anthology. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
1800:, which is the project supporting this list, has been revitalized after a long dormant period. A new project for bibliographies,
72:
1759:
1632:
I have closed this discussion and removed this entry. It is clear there is consensus that this does not meet our criteria. --
751:
statement, they will be advised to add these (if of course they are registered on Knowledge (XXG) and have a user talk page).
869:
We need to have another go at finding sources, and them trying to expand, with a clear criteria of "no source, no entry". --
638:
634:
629:
609:
541:
content on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
38:
723:– A publication which has significantly influenced the world or has had a massive impact on the teaching of chemistry.
538:
959:
1900:
525:
118:
91:
1941:
1917:
1882:
1858:
1781:
1734:
1697:
1647:
1624:
1599:
1576:
1557:
1461:
1439:
1419:
1400:
1365:
1345:
1330:
1315:
1294:
1278:
1226:
1205:
1048:
1027:
1013:
1009:
971:
945:
912:
884:
819:
78:
1937:
1866:
1. Yes, each new item should be discussed to ensure that it is notable, and not just a textbook for example.
1595:
1587:
454:
428:
1725:
Artificial radioactivity – papers by I Curie + F Joliot, Fermi, Hahn + Strassman, Mcmillan, Seaborg (3).
256:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
150:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
17:
1494:
858:
Aquatic Chemistry, Chemical Equilibria and Rates in Natural Waters Stumm, Werner and James J. Morgan.
1478:
31:
1667:
Leicester, H. M. 1968 Source book in chemistry. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
1933:
1519:
This entry is now for debate here whether it should be kept or deleted. The debate will close on
1490:
1449:
1878:
1756:
1750:
1730:
1572:
1457:
1424:
Indeed, but I want to look for sources. Albert is Australian so I may be able to find some. --
1415:
1341:
1326:
1290:
1044:
1023:
967:
908:
815:
1906:
5.Do you support Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Bibliographies? yes, its a good umbrella Project
1584:. Ditto. Sounds like an advertisement, no clear watershed impact on history of chemistry.
1775:
358:
345:
329:
308:
1851:
1690:
1640:
1617:
1550:
1432:
1393:
1358:
1308:
1271:
1219:
1198:
938:
877:
240:
219:
1755:, The Haworth information press serials: librarianship, Psychology Press, pp. 356–357,
1244:
Electrochemical Methods: Fundamentals and Applications Allen J. Bard, Larry R. Faulkner
994:
Electrochemical Methods: Fundamentals and Applications Allen J. Bard, Larry R. Faulkner
841:
Electrochemical Methods: Fundamentals and Applications Allen J. Bard, Larry R. Faulkner
147:
1673:
Knight, D., 1989, Natural Science Books in English 1600 - 1900, London: Portman Books.
509:
488:
1949:
1670:
Knight, D. 1968 Classical Scientific papers: Chemistry. London: Mills & Boon Ltd.
1486:
1445:
1407:
128:
1874:
1726:
1568:
1453:
1411:
1337:
1322:
1286:
1040:
1019:
963:
904:
811:
134:
1054:
I have been looking at the other lists and found several that are not included in
1771:
1677:
740:
of the publication. The importance could be further developed on the talk page.
442:
417:
1844:
1683:
1633:
1610:
1543:
1425:
1386:
1351:
1301:
1264:
1212:
1191:
931:
870:
515:
335:
124:
1682:
If anyone could find these and see whether they can be used. please do so. --
365:
on Knowledge (XXG). Please participate by editing this article, or visit the
1452:
has interesting comments on Selective Toxicity in the section London Years.
621:
603:
253:
958:
For Cotton and Wilkinson I have found Cotton's obituary from the Telegraph
704:
Some reasons why a particular publication might be regarded as important:
1869:
2. I think you are doing a good job of coordination and should continue.
362:
762:
statements after 7 days is reason enough for the entry to be deleted.
829:
Advanced Inorganic Chemistry F. Albert Cotton and Geoffrey Wilkinson
848:
I have added (1) and (5), as both seem to me to be standard texts.
1247:
The Practice of Medicinal Chemistry Camille Georges Wermuth editor
1238:
Physical Chemistry R. Stephen Berry, Stuart A. Rice, and John Ross
997:
The Practice of Medicinal Chemistry Camille Georges Wermuth editor
988:
Physical Chemistry R. Stephen Berry, Stuart A. Rice, and John Ross
844:
The Practice of Medicinal Chemistry Camille Georges Wermuth editor
835:
Physical Chemistry R. Stephen Berry, Stuart A. Rice, and John Ross
717:– A publication that changed scientific knowledge significantly.
1676:
Online - Selected Classic Papers from the History of Chemistry.
1499:
1899:
4.What do you think about the move to a new name? yes, Do it.
1796:
some of the science list will be moved back. I also note that
54:
26:
1450:
http://www.asap.unimelb.edu.au/bsparcs/aasmemoirs/albert.htm
1873:
which require that each item is in fact important/notable.
1321:
the article on Dalton, so we now have 4 links to articles.
641:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
545:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
1241:
Quantitative analysis Day, R. A. and Arthur L. Underwood
991:
Quantitative analysis Day, R. A. and Arthur L. Underwood
838:
Quantitative analysis Day, R. A. and Arthur L. Underwood
464:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering
1812:
To you want me to continue to coordinate that process?
1250:
The Structure of Physical Chemistry C. N. Hinshelwood
1000:
The Structure of Physical Chemistry C. N. Hinshelwood
855:
The Structure of Physical Chemistry C. N. Hinshelwood
252:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
146:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1257:The kinetics of chemical change in gaseous systems
782:Earlier comment to January 31st, 2006 archived to
671:This article has not yet received a rating on the
1839:Have I missed any questions that should be asked?
467:Template:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering
1809:Do you want us to keep discussing each new item?
1263:. I want to think more about Phys Chem texts. --
1058:. They are now. I have also been thinking about
452:, a project which is currently considered to be
1818:What do you think about the move to a new name?
561:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject History of Science
1896:3.How can we improve the list? Cite Cite Cite
1742:Here's another reference that may be useful:
1444:I looked at the references in the article on
552:History of Science Collaboration of the Month
8:
766:while maintaining the Knowledge (XXG) NPOV.
633:, an attempt to structure and organize all
2021:Mid-importance history of science articles
1834:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Bibliographies
1830:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Science pearls
1823:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Bibliographies
1802:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Bibliographies
1798:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Science pearls
1060:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Science pearls
598:
483:
412:
303:
214:
160:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Bibliographies
86:
60:
58:
2006:Low-importance chemical elements articles
1231:OK, back to the deletions. The list is:-
1056:List of important publications in science
711:– A publication that created a new topic.
537:, an attempt to improve and organize the
1502:, 5th Ed. 2011, 100% electronic textbook
1064:
772:List of scientific journals in chemistry
637:. If you wish to help, please visit the
450:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering
357:, which gives a central approach to the
41:on 24 October 2011 (UTC). The result of
2026:WikiProject History of Science articles
1961:High-importance Bibliographies articles
743:Where the editor has failed to add the
600:
564:Template:WikiProject History of Science
485:
414:
305:
216:
88:
2016:List-Class history of science articles
1971:Top-importance Science pearls articles
1843:Please let us have some views here. --
18:Talk:List of publications in chemistry
2001:List-Class chemical elements articles
1903:should be the Article, not the Redir.
801:Time for action on rules of inclusion
794:Comment to February 2011 archived to
788:Comment to February 2008 archived to
470:Chemical and Bio Engineering articles
266:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Chemistry
7:
694:This is the talk page for a list of
627:This article is within the scope of
448:This article is within the scope of
375:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Elements
246:This article is within the scope of
140:This article is within the scope of
1261:The Practice of Medicinal Chemistry
736:of the book and a statement of the
163:Template:WikiProject Bibliographies
1966:List-Class Science pearls articles
1956:List-Class Bibliographies articles
1609:I missed the COI! Very obvious. --
1523:July, 2011. Please discuss below.
25:
1991:Low-importance Chemistry articles
1653:Sources for lists of publications
1039:that IP number is in Melbourne.)
698:in chemistry, organized by field.
651:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Lists
2036:Unknown-importance List articles
620:
602:
518:
508:
487:
441:
416:
338:
328:
307:
239:
218:
127:
117:
90:
59:
30:
1235:Physical Chemistry P. W. Atkins
985:Physical Chemistry P. W. Atkins
832:Physical Chemistry P. W. Atkins
688:
581:This article has been rated as
395:This article has been rated as
286:This article has been rated as
180:This article has been rated as
37:This article was nominated for
1996:WikiProject Chemistry articles
1832:should become a task force of
1791:This list has just survived a
549:. You can also help with the
534:History of Science WikiProject
269:Template:WikiProject Chemistry
77:It is of interest to multiple
1:
2011:WikiProject Elements articles
1986:List-Class Chemistry articles
1918:06:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
1836:or remain a separate project?
1049:01:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
635:list pages on Knowledge (XXG)
378:Template:WikiProject Elements
351:This article is supported by
260:and see a list of open tasks.
195:This article is supported by
154:and see a list of open tasks.
1942:00:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
1883:02:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
1859:23:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
1815:How can we improve the list?
1782:16:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
1735:03:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
1698:00:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
1028:01:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
1014:00:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
972:02:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
946:00:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
913:23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
885:01:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
820:04:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
531:This article is part of the
461:Chemical and Bio Engineering
424:Chemical and Bio Engineering
1923:Proposed selection criteria
1648:03:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
1600:23:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
567:history of science articles
2057:
2041:WikiProject Lists articles
1981:WikiProject Bibliographies
1976:WikiProject Science pearls
1462:02:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
1440:01:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
1420:00:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
1401:23:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
1366:03:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
1346:01:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
1331:02:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
1316:00:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
1295:15:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
1279:05:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
1227:03:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
1206:01:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
673:project's importance scale
654:Template:WikiProject Lists
587:project's importance scale
381:chemical elements articles
292:project's importance scale
143:WikiProject Bibliographies
1901:Bibliography of chemistry
1625:07:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
1577:02:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
1558:00:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
670:
615:
580:
526:History of science portal
503:
436:
394:
323:
285:
234:
194:
179:
112:
85:
2031:List-Class List articles
1930:Science pearls talk page
1752:Journals of the century
166:Bibliographies articles
1749:Stankus, Tony (2002),
851:I do not agree about:
696:important publications
67:This article is rated
249:WikiProject Chemistry
198:the Science Taskforce
71:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1410:but not on Wermuth.
354:WikiProject Elements
1793:deletion discussion
1500:MCH Multimedia Inc.
1479:Physical Chemistry
1380:Medicinal chemistry
754:Failure to add the
1472:Physical Chemistry
1448:. The last one at
558:History of Science
539:history of science
495:History of Science
272:Chemistry articles
73:content assessment
1916:
1590:comment added by
1187:
1186:
780:
779:
687:
686:
683:
682:
679:
678:
630:WikiProject Lists
597:
596:
593:
592:
482:
481:
478:
477:
411:
410:
407:
406:
369:for more details.
359:chemical elements
302:
301:
298:
297:
213:
212:
209:
208:
53:
52:
16:(Redirected from
2048:
1915:
1914:
1856:
1849:
1764:
1695:
1688:
1645:
1638:
1622:
1615:
1602:
1555:
1548:
1437:
1430:
1398:
1391:
1363:
1356:
1313:
1306:
1276:
1269:
1224:
1217:
1203:
1196:
1065:
943:
936:
882:
875:
699:
689:
659:
658:
655:
652:
649:
624:
617:
616:
606:
599:
569:
568:
565:
562:
559:
528:
523:
522:
521:
512:
505:
504:
499:
491:
484:
472:
471:
468:
465:
462:
445:
438:
437:
432:
420:
413:
401:importance scale
383:
382:
379:
376:
373:
348:
346:Chemistry portal
343:
342:
341:
332:
325:
324:
319:
311:
304:
274:
273:
270:
267:
264:
243:
236:
235:
230:
222:
215:
186:importance scale
168:
167:
164:
161:
158:
137:
132:
131:
121:
114:
113:
108:
105:
94:
87:
70:
64:
63:
62:
55:
34:
27:
21:
2056:
2055:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2047:
2046:
2045:
1946:
1945:
1925:
1912:
1852:
1845:
1821:Do you support
1789:
1762:
1748:
1691:
1684:
1655:
1641:
1634:
1618:
1611:
1585:
1551:
1544:
1495:Bryan Sanctuary
1483:
1474:
1433:
1426:
1394:
1387:
1382:
1359:
1352:
1309:
1302:
1272:
1265:
1220:
1213:
1199:
1192:
1084:No. of articles
1035:
939:
932:
878:
871:
803:
693:
656:
653:
650:
647:
646:
566:
563:
560:
557:
556:
524:
519:
517:
497:
469:
466:
463:
460:
459:
426:
380:
377:
374:
371:
370:
344:
339:
337:
317:
271:
268:
265:
262:
261:
228:
182:High-importance
165:
162:
159:
156:
155:
133:
126:
107:High‑importance
106:
100:
68:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2054:
2052:
2044:
2043:
2038:
2033:
2028:
2023:
2018:
2013:
2008:
2003:
1998:
1993:
1988:
1983:
1978:
1973:
1968:
1963:
1958:
1948:
1947:
1924:
1921:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1904:
1897:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1870:
1867:
1841:
1840:
1837:
1826:
1819:
1816:
1813:
1810:
1788:
1785:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1760:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1723:
1720:
1712:
1711:
1706:
1705:
1680:
1679:
1674:
1671:
1668:
1665:
1662:
1654:
1651:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1604:
1603:
1579:
1561:
1560:
1504:
1503:
1497:
1482:
1475:
1473:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1381:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1252:
1251:
1248:
1245:
1242:
1239:
1236:
1185:
1184:
1181:
1178:
1175:
1171:
1170:
1167:
1164:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1147:
1143:
1142:
1139:
1136:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1125:
1122:
1119:
1115:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1094:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1081:
1076:
1074:No. of entries
1071:
1052:
1051:
1034:
1031:
1006:58.164.105.228
1002:
1001:
998:
995:
992:
989:
986:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
951:
950:
949:
948:
927:
923:
916:
915:
899:
898:
893:
892:
860:
859:
856:
846:
845:
842:
839:
836:
833:
830:
802:
799:
778:
777:
776:
775:
767:
763:
752:
741:
725:
724:
718:
712:
701:
700:
685:
684:
681:
680:
677:
676:
669:
663:
662:
660:
625:
613:
612:
607:
595:
594:
591:
590:
583:Mid-importance
579:
573:
572:
570:
530:
529:
513:
501:
500:
498:Mid‑importance
492:
480:
479:
476:
475:
473:
446:
434:
433:
421:
409:
408:
405:
404:
397:Low-importance
393:
387:
386:
384:
350:
349:
333:
321:
320:
318:Low‑importance
312:
300:
299:
296:
295:
288:Low-importance
284:
278:
277:
275:
258:the discussion
244:
232:
231:
229:Low‑importance
223:
211:
210:
207:
206:
203:Top-importance
193:
190:
189:
178:
172:
171:
169:
157:Bibliographies
152:the discussion
148:Bibliographies
139:
138:
122:
110:
109:
98:Bibliographies
95:
83:
82:
76:
65:
51:
50:
43:the discussion
35:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2053:
2042:
2039:
2037:
2034:
2032:
2029:
2027:
2024:
2022:
2019:
2017:
2014:
2012:
2009:
2007:
2004:
2002:
1999:
1997:
1994:
1992:
1989:
1987:
1984:
1982:
1979:
1977:
1974:
1972:
1969:
1967:
1964:
1962:
1959:
1957:
1954:
1953:
1951:
1944:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1934:RockMagnetist
1931:
1922:
1920:
1919:
1905:
1902:
1898:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1884:
1880:
1876:
1871:
1868:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1857:
1855:
1850:
1848:
1838:
1835:
1831:
1828:Do you think
1827:
1824:
1820:
1817:
1814:
1811:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1803:
1799:
1794:
1786:
1784:
1783:
1779:
1778:
1773:
1763:
1758:
1754:
1753:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1721:
1717:
1716:
1714:
1713:
1708:
1707:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1696:
1694:
1689:
1687:
1678:
1675:
1672:
1669:
1666:
1663:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1652:
1650:
1649:
1646:
1644:
1639:
1637:
1626:
1623:
1621:
1616:
1614:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1583:
1580:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1563:
1562:
1559:
1556:
1554:
1549:
1547:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1522:
1517:
1514:
1510:
1508:
1501:
1498:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1487:Keith Laidler
1485:
1484:
1481:
1480:
1476:
1471:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1446:Adrien Albert
1443:
1442:
1441:
1438:
1436:
1431:
1429:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1408:Adrien Albert
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1399:
1397:
1392:
1390:
1379:
1367:
1364:
1362:
1357:
1355:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1314:
1312:
1307:
1305:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1277:
1275:
1270:
1268:
1262:
1258:
1249:
1246:
1243:
1240:
1237:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1229:
1228:
1225:
1223:
1218:
1216:
1208:
1207:
1204:
1202:
1197:
1195:
1182:
1179:
1176:
1173:
1172:
1168:
1165:
1162:
1159:
1158:
1154:
1151:
1148:
1145:
1144:
1140:
1137:
1134:
1131:
1130:
1126:
1123:
1120:
1117:
1116:
1112:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1098:
1095:
1092:
1089:
1088:
1085:
1082:
1080:
1077:
1075:
1072:
1070:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1057:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1037:
1036:
1032:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1007:
999:
996:
993:
990:
987:
984:
983:
982:
973:
969:
965:
961:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
947:
944:
942:
937:
935:
928:
924:
920:
919:
918:
917:
914:
910:
906:
901:
900:
895:
894:
889:
888:
887:
886:
883:
881:
876:
874:
867:
863:
857:
854:
853:
852:
849:
843:
840:
837:
834:
831:
828:
827:
826:
822:
821:
817:
813:
807:
800:
798:
797:
792:
791:
786:
785:
773:
768:
764:
761:
757:
753:
750:
746:
742:
739:
735:
731:
730:
729:
722:
719:
716:
713:
710:
709:Topic creator
707:
706:
705:
702:
697:
691:
690:
674:
668:
665:
664:
661:
657:List articles
644:
640:
636:
632:
631:
626:
623:
619:
618:
614:
611:
608:
605:
601:
588:
584:
578:
575:
574:
571:
554:
553:
548:
544:
540:
536:
535:
527:
516:
514:
511:
507:
506:
502:
496:
493:
490:
486:
474:
457:
456:
451:
447:
444:
440:
439:
435:
430:
425:
422:
419:
415:
402:
398:
392:
389:
388:
385:
368:
364:
360:
356:
355:
347:
336:
334:
331:
327:
326:
322:
316:
313:
310:
306:
293:
289:
283:
280:
279:
276:
259:
255:
251:
250:
245:
242:
238:
237:
233:
227:
224:
221:
217:
204:
201:(assessed as
200:
199:
192:
191:
187:
183:
177:
174:
173:
170:
153:
149:
145:
144:
136:
130:
125:
123:
120:
116:
115:
111:
104:
99:
96:
93:
89:
84:
80:
74:
66:
57:
56:
48:
44:
40:
36:
33:
29:
28:
19:
1926:
1911:
1889:
1854:(Discussion)
1853:
1846:
1842:
1790:
1776:
1769:
1751:
1741:
1693:(Discussion)
1692:
1685:
1681:
1656:
1643:(Discussion)
1642:
1635:
1631:
1620:(Discussion)
1619:
1612:
1592:136.152.0.39
1586:— Preceding
1581:
1564:
1553:(Discussion)
1552:
1545:
1540:Description:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1520:
1518:
1512:
1511:
1507:Description:
1506:
1505:
1477:
1435:(Discussion)
1434:
1427:
1396:(Discussion)
1395:
1388:
1383:
1361:(Discussion)
1360:
1353:
1311:(Discussion)
1310:
1303:
1274:(Discussion)
1273:
1266:
1260:
1256:
1253:
1230:
1222:(Discussion)
1221:
1214:
1209:
1201:(Discussion)
1200:
1193:
1188:
1104:Mathematics
1083:
1078:
1073:
1068:
1053:
1033:Reprise 2011
1017:
1003:
980:
941:(Discussion)
940:
933:
880:(Discussion)
879:
872:
868:
864:
861:
850:
847:
823:
808:
804:
793:
787:
781:
759:
755:
748:
744:
737:
733:
726:
720:
715:Breakthrough
714:
708:
703:
695:
692:
639:project page
628:
582:
550:
543:project page
532:
453:
396:
367:project page
352:
287:
247:
196:
181:
141:
135:Books portal
79:WikiProjects
46:
1890:My $ 0.02:
1536:Importance:
1532:Importance:
1513:Importance:
1491:John Meiser
1118:Statistics
1079:No. of refs
756:description
745:description
734:description
1950:Categories
1787:The future
1761:0789011344
1090:Chemistry
796:/Archive 3
790:/Archive 2
784:/Archive 1
760:importance
749:importance
738:importance
643:discussion
547:discussion
361:and their
69:List-class
1913:Exit2DOS
1770:Regards,
1174:Medecine
721:Influence
263:Chemistry
254:chemistry
226:Chemistry
1719:Wheland.
1588:unsigned
1160:Physics
1146:Geology
1132:Biology
1018:Agreed.
455:inactive
429:inactive
372:Elements
363:isotopes
315:Elements
39:deletion
1875:Dirac66
1727:Dirac66
1569:Dirac66
1454:Dirac66
1412:Dirac66
1338:Dirac66
1323:Dirac66
1287:Dirac66
1041:Dirac66
1020:Dirac66
964:Dirac66
905:Dirac66
812:Dirac66
585:on the
399:on the
290:on the
184:on the
103:Science
1582:Delete
1565:Delete
1528:Delete
75:scale.
1847:Bduke
1704:have.
1686:Bduke
1636:Bduke
1613:Bduke
1546:Bduke
1428:Bduke
1389:Bduke
1354:Bduke
1304:Bduke
1267:Bduke
1215:Bduke
1194:Bduke
934:Bduke
873:Bduke
648:Lists
610:Lists
1938:talk
1879:talk
1777:talk
1757:ISBN
1731:talk
1596:talk
1573:talk
1538:and
1458:talk
1416:talk
1342:talk
1327:talk
1291:talk
1107:108
1069:List
1045:talk
1024:talk
1010:talk
968:talk
960:here
909:talk
816:talk
758:and
747:and
176:High
47:keep
45:was
1772:RJH
1521:25
1166:30
1163:86
1149:34
1135:61
1124:20
1121:34
1113:36
1110:41
1096:15
1093:32
926:go.
667:???
577:Mid
391:Low
282:Low
1952::
1940:)
1881:)
1780:)
1733:)
1598:)
1575:)
1460:)
1418:)
1344:)
1329:)
1293:)
1183:1
1180:9
1177:9
1169:8
1155:2
1152:1
1141:5
1138:1
1127:3
1099:3
1047:)
1026:)
1012:)
970:)
911:)
818:)
205:).
101::
1936:(
1877:(
1825:?
1774:(
1729:(
1594:(
1571:(
1493:,
1489:,
1456:(
1414:(
1340:(
1325:(
1289:(
1043:(
1022:(
1008:(
966:(
907:(
814:(
774:.
675:.
645:.
589:.
555:.
458:.
431:)
427:(
403:.
294:.
188:.
81:.
49:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.