1064:. I have pruned it down as suggested above to list only those publications that have articles or are well covered in articles. I believe that goes further than some people would want, but it does ensure that the publications are notable and the choice is not original research. I am going to make a few final points before leaving this to the closing admin. First, while I recognise that consensus can change, this list and quite a few similar lists have been around for a long while and many editors have contributed to them and found then useful. Second, this discussion and outcome will have an impact on the other lists. I think only one of the other lits of publications has been deleted and that was not a list of science publications. So in commenting further and in closing this AfD, please take them into account. Third, it is time to decide what we want with all these lists. I do not think that is deletion, but rather to improve them so every entry has a source that asserts their notability or links to an article on the publication where notability is demonstrated. These are useful lists and they could be better. I have left the "descriptions" and "importance" sections, as those arise from the template at the top, which is on all these lists of publications. Whether that is changed, is for another discussion. --
886:
past and journal titles were removed. The various lists of journals are for journal titles. What is the problem about "standard" textbooks versus game-changing ones. Standard textbooks do not, as far as I can see, have WP articles. Some game-changing ones do. What I have found interesting in looking at this issue, is the fact that a number of articles exist on scientific publications, but they are not linked from these lists of publications. Only this morning I came across the article on the book on quantum theory by Paul Dirac, a game-changing text if ever there was one. It was not linked on the physics list of publications. Finally, the usual criteria for inclusion in a WP list, is that the item has its own WP article. Increasingly I think that should be the situation here. When I find time, I am going to prune this list down to those that do have articles or sections in articles that might be forked if the article gets large. I will probably miss some but they can be added back. --
723:
over-restrictive. Is there consensus that entries should have their own articles, or there are articles that have a substantial section discussing the publication (that might be forked later into is own article if the article got too large), or it is clearly demonstrated that an article on them could be written by several good sources discussing the importance of the publication. I entirely agree that this list is not satisfactory, but it needs improving by the removal of a great deal of the material, not deleting. It is surely worthwhile to have a list that points to the really notable publications in biology. However the absence here of biology editors is telling. I do not think anyone from the
Biology Project has come here to comment, but I could be wrong. I am happy to have a go at a massive pruning, but it would be better if a biologist did it. It would also be good to see whether there would be consensus to keep the article if it was massively pruned down. --
1159:? That list has only one reference. Is it the "important" in the title? That could be changed, but given that the last AfD added it, I would like a fuller discussion that covered all the lists of science publications. Is it the added text describing the publication, so it is not a bare list? Well, we could prune it down to that, but again, I would prefer a wider discussion because it affects all the other lists. That is why I left those in. I have hesitated to inform editors of the other lists as that might be considered inappropriate. However, there has been a lot of work recently on the Geology list and I do not think any of those editors have commented here. Would someone else care to draw the attention of the editors on all these science lists to this discussion? --
347:. First, I think this has been at AfD before and kept. That needs to be checked by the nominator and a link added here. The onus is on the nominator to do this. Second, the criteria for inclusion in these lists has been recently altered by the editors of the Geology list, but the template is included in all such lists. The implications of this change has however not yet been noticed across all lists. This is therefore a bad time to discuss deletion. Let it improve by the deletion of entries that are merely text books. That is the change made on the Geology list. Even without this consideration, the list should be kept. What is needed is that the selection criteria are better sourced. One criteria is "
311:- 1) this is obviously Notable, and acts almost as a portal to many WP articles on biology / biologists (with scope for much more). 2) Criteria (needed, sure) can readily be added. 3) Neutrality can never be guaranteed, but it's at once clear this is a list with wide scope (Anatomy, Insects, Genetics, Origin of Life...) so even if it began with POV bias, it will quickly widen to cover what it should. Famous names from school science lessons are all there. 4) Original Research? Perhaps this refers to the Description and Importance sections which admittedly sound like a university teacher talking. But the list itself is just a list.
614:. A merge means some content is moved there. That article just lists notable journals. It would be inappropriate to add details of books and journal articles. The editors who edit that list of journals would certainly not welcome us adding a section on the "Origin of Species" by Darwin. You are right that journals contain publications, lots of them in each issue. This article we are discussing lists those publications that are notable. Not all are, even if published in a notable journal. --
867:
ones. The logical level of publication to include in an article like this would be the landmark individual publications: breakthrough articles and, from the pre-journal era, books. I'd suggest (but not demand) the logical format would actually be "Timeline of important publications in biology", even if that wasn't in the title. Obviously if a total rewrite equivalent to a recreated article occurred, I'd switch my !vote to plain "keep" rather than "keep but allow recreation".
491:". However, we can source others stating this. This is happening in some of the other lists of publications. We just need more editors to look for such sources (It will not be difficult to find one for "The origin of Species"!) and delete entries that do not meet the stated criteria. In case anyone asked why I am not doing that, it is because I am not a biologist and I already do not have the time to work on other lists where I have more expertise to look for sources. --
351:– A publication that changed scientific knowledge significantly". If this is the reason for an entry, the entry should say so and it should have a source that says the publication changed scientific knowledge significantly. Similarly with the other criteria for entry. The list needs improving in this way, not deleting. While it is not necessary for each entry to have its own article, the proportion of entries that do have their own article should be larger. --
971:
in the list is notable. Whether it is appropraite for a particulr list is of course another question. Having an article also means that this is not "some editors here following their own interests/preferences". The only decision they have to make is "Is it a biology publication". Later today (it is early here) I will remove everything that does not assert notability. It will still need some cleanup, but perhaps people can make a clearer judgment then. --
31:
764:
these were "Competitive exclusion" and "Histoire
Naturelle". All the books by Stephen J Gauld have articles and at least one should be added to the list. One is already in the list. I may well have missed some. I suggest that this information is a strong argument to keep the list but clean it up by removing non-notable material. --
1274:
whose source is identifiable. Not "Darwin's Origin of
Species is a very important book", but "X has described Darwin's Origin of Species as ....", with a proper reference of course. We can use modern textbooks as sources for the historical documents, since the modern textbooks do have identifiable authors.
1269:
which describes the evolution of ideas, and I think that integrating the two articles would leave the information about key publications harder to find in a massive article. This list of key publications (articles and monographs) is also quite different from a list of entire biology journals; in fact
910:
Apologies for the incorrect terminology. But I think you are incorrect re inclusion criteria - "has its own article" is definitely not the "standard standard". Very many lists contain entries that do not possess their own articles, or even redlinks as "articles that should exist but currently don't".
560:
is about publications, not the journals they might be published in. So these are no multiple lists about the same thing. There are no items in common. No journals are listed in the publications lists and no publications are in the lists of journals. Both journals and publications can be important and
970:
that many lists include material that does not have its own article, but when that material is challenged, the question of having an article is often raised. It seems that having an article is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for inclusion. Having an article certainly asserts that an entry
1273:
The weaknesses in the current list system can be dealt with. The 207th textbook in a given subfield should not be included even if today's students use it; only the one or two which defined the subfield historically. Also, the inclusion of each publication should be justified by an external opinion
1264:
As a contributor to the chemistry and physics lists, I feel that these lists do provide a useful guide to the landmark literature in each science. The statistics for this biology list show 1081 page views for August 2011 (before the beginning of this discussion) so there are a significant number of
1242:
Well, I was a Keep at the start of this discussion, which has demonstrated that the "important" creates contention amongst us. Bduke has laboured mightily to improve the list and to argue its corner, and indeed the shortened list has its attractions - I feel I might have picked the same ones if I'd
885:
As I have tried to explain further up, journals contain publications, but are not themselves publications. A publication is something that is authored by one or more people. However, it would be easy enough to make it clear that journals as such be not included. Indeed that point has come up in the
763:
The estimate above that only 4 of the entries have their own article is quite wrong. I found 15, although in 5 cases the article was not actually linked in this list. I have added such links. There were also 2 that had a fairly extensive discussion of the publication in the article on the author -
541:("placing the results of one's research into the literature"), I don't buy that there is a "clear distinction between a scientific journal and a publication". WP does not need multiple lists of the same thing, with one apparently being "important" and the other, by implication, being "unimportant".
866:
Essentially, picking the correct level of "publication". If you simply go by "do we have an article?" then the page would be almost entirely filled by a list of journals, many of them obscure-but-sufficiently-notable-for-WP. And then there's the problem of "standard" textbooks versus gamechanging
687:
Well, the last Afd resulted in "important" being added to the title to stress that there were criteria for inclusion that defined "important" and that we should not just be adding any publication. Unfortunately this list does not follow that, but that means those entries should be removed, rather
722:
The question has been raised above whether entries to this list should have their own article in order to demonstrate notability. This has been discussed before on the talk page of at least one similar list of publications. The general consensus seemed to be that this had merit but was somewhat
1181:
I have just come to this discussion yesterday, and am following this discussion closely. I feel it is best to see let this afd run-its-course before deciding on-a-plan-of-action on the other lists, thought I feel exactly that this afd will affect the other lists, specifically the ones without
634:
If they were WP:Notable, they would have their own
Article (at a quick glance, I only count 4 with their own). The rest is External links, links to Authors and ISBN numbers. If you feel List of biology journals is a bad target, a merge (merge&delete?) to the individual Authors is fine, but
1009:
Actually, I don't think that Gray's
Anatomy belongs in the medicine list either. It's certainly been influential (at least in a part of the world, although certainly not everywhere), but it did not really move the science forward the way On the Origin of Species did, or Mendel's work.
935:
should be included here says enough. An important textbook: yes. Notable: absolutely. But a landmark publication in biology? Gimme a break. Pure (uncritical) OR, that's what this list is. If ever such a list should be re-created, it should be on the basis of
639:
list is purely POV & OR. The
Nominator got it exactly right. In regard to past AfD's; Just because they did something then, does not make it right forever. WP (along with everything in it) needs to continually evolve. (On a sidenote, I would suggest
381:
198:
1208:
was the list that was deleted. The deletion debate doesn't tell us much, and I am not sure if there are compilations of notable sociological works as a search turns up nothing, but I do not know if such as done before it was
911:
Inclusion =/= Self-standing notability, in general. Of course, for this article it might be determine, by consensus, that in this instance such an inclusion criterion would be appropriate. But it's not the default position.
841:
Surely, the fact that "On the Origin of
Species" and "Gray's Anatomy" have their own articles, demonstrates that they are notable and not OR. So if it was cut back as I suggest above, what is the difficulty?
822:
be created, if you could source the opinions of historians of science on what are the landmark publications - On the Origin of
Species, Gray's Anatomy, vital journal articles etc. But this isn't such a list.
376:
461:. It would be much more encyclopedic to discuss these published studies in the course of pages that discuss the breakthroughs as they occurred during the histories of the respective fields. Also, note
132:
127:
192:
136:
119:
159:
591:
a publication, making them the same thing to a reader. One being the parent topic of the other, and not 'equal and separate entities' as your suggesting. Just so we all understand,
1152:
262:
483:
There is a clear distinction between a scientific journal and a publication, so a redirect is not appropriate. Most of the entries are to books not journal articles.
40:
285:
123:
1156:
992:
462:
599:, so No there is not a "clear distinction between a journal and a publication", even to WP Editors, a publication is just a different word for the same thing.
1228:
I can't see how this we could ever define "important" as in the sense of "landmark". So many things fall within the continuum of important and unimportant.
665:
is right, the proposed "important" title is certainly not acceptable. And the list must flatten down to being just a list. Then it can usefully accompany
963:
213:
557:
180:
115:
107:
487:
is quite correct that "There is no way for editors to determine the boundary between what is and what isn't a "breakthrough" without engaging in
1283:
1256:
1237:
1218:
1191:
1174:
1142:
1124:
1106:
1079:
1056:
1019:
1004:
986:
949:
920:
901:
876:
857:
832:
806:
779:
756:
738:
703:
682:
650:
629:
605:
576:
547:
528:
506:
474:
437:
402:
366:
339:
320:
300:
277:
254:
101:
457:, etc., etc., etc. There is no way for editors to determine the boundary between what is and what isn't a "breakthrough" without engaging in
174:
95:
423:; in the neutral eyes or WP? If something significant happened in the publication past, it should be mentioned in the Article, or as a
170:
17:
1318:
1243:
tried hard enough. But the venture now seems doomed, and I feel the better course is to rely on the main
Biology articles. So sadly
556:, contain publications, but that list is a list of notable journals in the field. Publications can be journal articles or books and
1205:
220:
81:. There is no objective criteria based on reliable sources that defines which publications are "important" and which are not.
1097:
1300:
328:—I don't see that this topic needs to be deleted, although the inclusion criteria should be better clarified. Regards,
186:
65:
46:
246:
1052:
415:. Current title is combative, extremely POV and in violation of several, consensus accepted, naming conventions (
465:: normally our list pages are lists of blue-linked Knowledge (XXG) articles, not lists of items in text form. --
1299:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
611:
553:
446:
420:
412:
90:
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1252:
678:
454:
316:
250:
940:
that define/list landmark publications. Not some editors here following their own interests/preferences. --
592:
584:
538:
916:
872:
828:
596:
416:
1233:
1214:
1187:
1120:
1048:
1000:
752:
524:
470:
644:
short-circuit a lot of future AFD's by revisiting all the "List of
Important ..." of your Move log)
552:
There is a clear distinction between a journal and a publication. Journals, such as those listed in
206:
85:
82:
995:. In that case, I might favor keeping, perhaps with a rename that removes the word "important". --
1266:
1248:
813:
790:
674:
666:
534:
516:
450:
312:
1279:
662:
296:
273:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1088:
Pruning it down has still not corrected the POV or OR problems. The 'List' has no citations.
230:
1138:
1015:
967:
945:
912:
868:
824:
802:
333:
1229:
1210:
1183:
1167:
1116:
1072:
996:
979:
959:
932:
894:
850:
772:
748:
731:
696:
622:
569:
537:("intended to further the progress of science, usually by reporting new research.") &
520:
499:
484:
466:
395:
359:
242:
937:
670:
488:
458:
234:
78:
382:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology (2nd nomination)
1312:
610:
I do not want to drag this out. The context was the proposal "Merge and redirect to
1275:
371:
I will help the nominator. The earlier discussions were under a different name at:-
292:
269:
77:. The "keep" !voters have failed to address the issue that this list is inherently
1096:& What makes anything not listed (by implication) 'unimportant'. Please read:
153:
1134:
1011:
941:
798:
747:
For what it's worth, Crusio and I are both biologists by way of neuroscience. --
329:
1160:
1065:
972:
887:
843:
765:
724:
689:
641:
615:
562:
492:
388:
352:
238:
793:, per Tryptofish. This list is pure OR. Who decides what is important? What
419:
for 1). What makes these publications more "important" than those listed at
1265:
readers who are interested. The information here is different from that in
991:
Let me suggest making it, simply, a list of blue links, in the manner of
818:
The list as it stands is entirely OR. It strikes me that a non-OR list
931:
I agree. The fact that the above discussion uncritically assumes that
377:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology
431:
the basis for a separation from the rest of similar periodicals.
1293:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1047:, but the list of selected publications is rather subjective.
25:
1270:
I would delete the list of journals rather than this list.
149:
145:
141:
205:
515:
Then I would have no objection to redirecting it to
1133:
So do I. They are inherent to this list, I fear. --
219:
1153:List of bicycle brands and manufacturing companies
1157:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists
993:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists
463:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1303:). No further edits should be made to this page.
587:Article, 'cause it says everything in a Journal
449:, per comment just above. Merge content into
8:
1155:which was one of the first I came across in
284:Note: This debate has been included in the
263:list of Science-related deletion discussions
261:Note: This debate has been included in the
1206:List of important publications in sociology
964:List of important publications in medicine
286:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
283:
260:
966:. It currently is not. I also agree with
558:List of important publications in biology
116:List of important publications in biology
108:List of important publications in biology
45:For an explanation of the process, see
583:Well you should clear that up in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1151:What makes this list different from
561:notable, but they are different. --
1115:I agree. Those problems remain. --
958:OK, I take Crusio's point. Should
41:deletion review on 2011 October 19
24:
1098:Knowledge (XXG):Common knowledge
816:, BUT open to non-OR recreation.
29:
47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1284:21:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1257:06:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1238:05:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1219:10:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1192:10:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1175:03:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1143:20:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1125:20:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1107:20:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1080:05:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
1057:20:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
1020:20:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1005:23:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
987:22:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
950:21:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
921:19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
902:03:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
877:02:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
858:02:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
833:01:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
807:07:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
780:04:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
757:18:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
739:03:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
704:00:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
683:07:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
651:02:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
630:00:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
606:19:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
577:00:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
548:23:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
529:21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
507:21:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
475:19:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
438:19:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
403:01:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
367:01:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
340:21:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
321:20:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
301:19:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
278:19:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
255:19:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
102:22:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1:
688:than changing the title. --
1335:
1319:Pages at deletion review
1296:Please do not modify it.
612:List of biology journals
554:List of biology journals
447:List of biology journals
421:List of biology journals
413:List of biology journals
61:Please do not modify it.
455:History of neuroscience
593:Scientific publication
585:Scientific publication
539:Scientific publication
597:Scientific literature
1182:verified references.
1267:History of biology
814:History of biology
791:History of biology
667:History of biology
535:Scientific journal
517:History of biology
451:History of biology
443:Merge and redirect
73:The result was
1105:
663:User:Exit2DOS2000
649:
604:
546:
436:
409:Merge & redir
303:
289:
280:
266:
235:original research
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
1326:
1298:
1172:
1165:
1104:
1103:
1092:considers these
1077:
1070:
984:
977:
938:reliable sources
899:
892:
855:
848:
777:
770:
736:
729:
701:
694:
648:
647:
627:
620:
603:
602:
574:
567:
545:
544:
504:
497:
435:
434:
400:
393:
364:
357:
290:
267:
224:
223:
209:
157:
139:
98:
93:
88:
63:
33:
32:
26:
1334:
1333:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1301:deletion review
1294:
1168:
1161:
1101:
1073:
1066:
980:
973:
962:be included in
895:
888:
851:
844:
797:"important"? --
773:
766:
732:
725:
697:
690:
645:
623:
616:
600:
570:
563:
542:
500:
493:
432:
396:
389:
360:
353:
166:
130:
114:
111:
96:
91:
86:
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1332:
1330:
1322:
1321:
1311:
1310:
1306:
1305:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1271:
1240:
1222:
1221:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1178:
1177:
1146:
1145:
1128:
1127:
1110:
1109:
1083:
1082:
1059:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
960:Gray's Anatomy
953:
952:
933:Gray's Anatomy
924:
923:
905:
904:
880:
879:
861:
860:
836:
835:
812:Delete, rd to
809:
783:
782:
761:
760:
759:
742:
741:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
669:without being
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
533:After reading
510:
509:
478:
477:
445:. Redirect to
440:
385:
384:
379:
373:
372:
369:
342:
323:
305:
304:
281:
239:Justin (koavf)
227:
226:
163:
110:
105:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1331:
1320:
1317:
1316:
1314:
1304:
1302:
1297:
1291:
1290:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1272:
1268:
1263:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1249:Chiswick Chap
1246:
1241:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1224:
1223:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1207:
1203:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1180:
1179:
1176:
1173:
1171:
1166:
1164:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1108:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1071:
1069:
1063:
1062:Final comment
1060:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1043:
1042:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
989:
988:
985:
983:
978:
976:
969:
965:
961:
957:
956:
955:
954:
951:
947:
943:
939:
934:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
922:
918:
914:
909:
908:
907:
906:
903:
900:
898:
893:
891:
884:
883:
882:
881:
878:
874:
870:
865:
864:
863:
862:
859:
856:
854:
849:
847:
840:
839:
838:
837:
834:
830:
826:
821:
817:
815:
810:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
785:
784:
781:
778:
776:
771:
769:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
745:
744:
743:
740:
737:
735:
730:
728:
721:
720:
705:
702:
700:
695:
693:
686:
685:
684:
680:
676:
675:Chiswick Chap
672:
668:
664:
660:
652:
643:
638:
633:
632:
631:
628:
626:
621:
619:
613:
609:
608:
607:
598:
594:
590:
586:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
575:
573:
568:
566:
559:
555:
551:
550:
549:
540:
536:
532:
531:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
513:
512:
511:
508:
505:
503:
498:
496:
490:
486:
482:
481:
480:
479:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
441:
439:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
407:
406:
405:
404:
401:
399:
394:
392:
383:
380:
378:
375:
374:
370:
368:
365:
363:
358:
356:
350:
346:
343:
341:
337:
336:
331:
327:
324:
322:
318:
314:
313:Chiswick Chap
310:
307:
306:
302:
298:
294:
287:
282:
279:
275:
271:
264:
259:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
222:
218:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
169:
168:Find sources:
164:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
109:
106:
104:
103:
99:
94:
89:
84:
80:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1295:
1292:
1261:
1244:
1225:
1170:(Discussion)
1169:
1162:
1093:
1089:
1075:(Discussion)
1074:
1067:
1061:
1044:
982:(Discussion)
981:
974:
897:(Discussion)
896:
889:
853:(Discussion)
852:
845:
819:
811:
794:
786:
775:(Discussion)
774:
767:
734:(Discussion)
733:
726:
699:(Discussion)
698:
691:
636:
625:(Discussion)
624:
617:
588:
572:(Discussion)
571:
564:
502:(Discussion)
501:
494:
442:
428:
424:
408:
398:(Discussion)
397:
390:
386:
362:(Discussion)
361:
354:
349:Breakthrough
348:
344:
334:
325:
308:
228:
216:
210:
202:
195:
189:
183:
177:
167:
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
968:TheGrappler
913:TheGrappler
869:TheGrappler
825:TheGrappler
519:instead. --
427:in a List,
417:WP:POVTITLE
229:Inherently
193:free images
1230:Curb Chain
1211:Curb Chain
1184:Curb Chain
1117:Tryptofish
997:Tryptofish
749:Tryptofish
642:User:Bduke
595:redirs to
521:Tryptofish
485:Tryptofish
467:Tryptofish
1102:Exit2DOS
1094:Important
646:Exit2DOS
601:Exit2DOS
543:Exit2DOS
433:Exit2DOS
293:• Gene93k
270:• Gene93k
1313:Category
1204:I think
787:Redirect
160:View log
1276:Dirac66
1209:delete.
1049:Biophys
199:WP refs
187:scholar
133:protect
128:history
83:King of
1245:Delete
1226:Delete
1135:Crusio
1012:Crusio
942:Crusio
799:Crusio
661:Well,
171:Google
137:delete
75:delete
1163:Bduke
1068:Bduke
975:Bduke
890:Bduke
846:Bduke
820:could
768:Bduke
727:Bduke
692:Bduke
671:WP:OR
618:Bduke
565:Bduke
495:Bduke
489:WP:OR
459:WP:OR
391:Bduke
355:Bduke
214:JSTOR
175:books
154:views
146:watch
142:links
79:WP:OR
16:<
1280:talk
1262:Keep
1253:talk
1234:talk
1215:talk
1188:talk
1139:talk
1121:talk
1090:Whom
1053:talk
1045:Keep
1016:talk
1001:talk
946:talk
917:talk
873:talk
829:talk
803:talk
753:talk
679:talk
637:this
525:talk
471:talk
425:Note
345:Keep
335:talk
326:Keep
317:talk
309:Keep
297:talk
274:talk
233:and
207:FENS
181:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
1247:.
789:to
429:not
411:to
330:RJH
237:. —
231:POV
221:TWL
158:– (
1315::
1282:)
1255:)
1236:)
1217:)
1190:)
1141:)
1123:)
1100:.
1055:)
1018:)
1010:--
1003:)
948:)
919:)
875:)
842:--
831:)
805:)
795:is
755:)
681:)
673:.
589:is
527:)
473:)
453:,
387:--
338:)
319:)
299:)
291:—
288:.
276:)
268:—
265:.
253:☯
201:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
100:♠
43:.
1278:(
1251:(
1232:(
1213:(
1186:(
1137:(
1119:(
1051:(
1014:(
999:(
944:(
915:(
871:(
827:(
801:(
751:(
677:(
523:(
469:(
332:(
315:(
295:(
272:(
251:M
249:☺
247:C
245:☮
243:T
241:❤
225:)
217:·
211:·
203:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
178:·
173:(
165:(
162:)
156:)
118:(
97:♣
92:♦
87:♥
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.