196:--and it might seem that a split would make more sense. Some of our articles have extremely extensive bibliographies, listing the important and the unimportant equally--sometimes with the clear objective of listing everything possible on a subject. Is this a role for a general encyclopedia? (but even if not, should we expand our role and do it anyway?) Again, If we accept articles listing all the books of a highly notable writer, and we certainly do, should we perhaps accept articles listing all the books on a notable subject? Another solution is article bibliography subpages, but that would obviously takes some discussion. Another possibility,discussed a little, is a WikiBibliography project; yet another is a Bibliography space within the project. These are really strategic planning considerations.
223:
constrained by its topic--though the sections starting "the following have not been sufficiently scrutinized" suggest that even this might be somewhat difficult and would, in effect, rely on reliable sources to establish whether they are included correctly. (Now that would be a monk's job--does that expression exist in
English?) What's next is, perhaps, an annotated bibliography...eminently useful, and very, very hard to ever make complete (believe me--I'm working on one--but this is not an argument against the idea, of course, though it would be OR, really). For now, but I am very interested in other opinions, I'm going to go with
444:(I note, btw, that the article on bacteriophages there does not have one--since the licenses are now compatible, a step that could be taken regardless of the decision here is to copy it there.) At the moment, this function is turned off for article space, but it could be turned on. What could immediately be done is having them as a subpage of talk space--or as mentioned above, of project space. Another, more elaborate way in structure but in function very similar, is the addition of a Bibliography space, to correspond with article space and talk space.
48:. There is no consensus to just delete this page outright, but all agree that this content should not remain in article space in this form. There's no agreement about what ought to be done, though. I suggest that interested editors continue to develop ideas about what to do with this type of content in general (possibly through a RfC with a variety of options) and implement it by moving, merging or redirecting this page as required.
309:
used in the present articles. One of the problems of this article is that it aims at being comprehensive and includes the unimportant as well as the important. It would all be useful however, if one were going to write an original history of the subject at the research level, including the
Russian work. It however does not now include work in non-Western languages.
188:
I saw this at prod and brought it here, because I think the community should see this--it raises some general questions. I've known about the article, and never been happy with it because it does not really fit into the framework of an encyclopedia, and would seem to violate NOT INDISCRIMINATE. A few
308:
Most of the material that will be useful to source articles already is; although there are probably several dozen or so articles that need writing on individual bacteriophages, in addition to probably over a hundred biographies, they would not use monograph references much beyond the ones already
322:
page. I admire all the hardwork that has gone into making this list, but, Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not an almanac. If one
Bibliography series is let through, just imagine what sort of topics would turn up with bibliographic lists? We'd end up having the same monograph or
222:
I am inclined to think that WP should offer some room for bibliographies; it's the kind of thing that would be helpful and as long as we don't have a project, maybe this should be it. Let's face it, it's a lot more helpful and encyclopedic than some other content we have. It is discriminate, being
287:
the article and move the information out of the article space where it could be used to source encyclopaedic articles. This information does not seem to be acceptable except as a reference list, so merging does not seem to be a good option to me. I am also afraid that leaving the article as an
189:
of these works are notable themselves & articles could be written; a good number are part of notable series, about which articles could be written. Not all of them are. We certainly could make a list of the ones we wrote articles for when we wrote them.
157:
412:
The List of important publications in ... articles are different: they are intentionally a selected list of of the most important publications, with the inclusion of the justified by sources and consensus.
355:
has some other problems (like a paragraph-long essay about publishing on paper versus publishing on the web, which is rather off-topic), but those are not reasons for deletion (just for cleanup).
391:
118:
241:
I'm not familiar with relevant wikiprojects, but IMO bibliographies belong there, not main article space. I pinged two WPs that may adopt it (which I would strongly recommend).
323:
book or paper quoted in ten different places and it would clutter up the current system. Even if left in as an experiment, these kind of articles will tend to stagnate, as
255:
A quick search for WP:bibliographies shows that many project pages have a subpage for relevant bibliography, but I'd love to see some more cohesive guidance on the topic.
151:
379:
227:, though I think that DGG has raised some interesting bigger issues, and though I think also that the current format needs editiong (but that's for another forum).
199:
So the question to be is whether we should accept this as an experimental exception, or merge it, or delete it and save what content is notable. Myself, I'm
348:
533:
for those suggesting a bibliography subpage: we do not have a bibliography tab the way citizendium does (yet?). In the meantime: just move it to
91:
86:
192:
But there are other considerations: It would be possible to include all of these in a bibliography section of the already long article on
95:
17:
383:
78:
172:
139:
436:
There are slightly more complicated ways of handling these that could be considered. One of the, is the method adopted by
561:
36:
351:
for example), but as a standalone product I don't see how we'd decide what to include and what to say about it. The
387:
133:
534:
260:
560:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
546:
522:
494:
473:
455:
424:
403:
364:
336:
297:
274:
250:
236:
213:
60:
129:
375:
332:
485:
as per DGG. This has really to be done, and it would be a wonderful addition to WP articles in general. --
441:
347:
from mainspace. I can see this as an aid to help people write articles (similar to the websites list at
328:
268:
179:
82:
440:: bibliographies on subpages in addition to the actual references for the articles. A good example is
464:
The creation of bibliography space sounds like a positive step in the evolution of
Knowledge (XXG).
318:
I would say go ahead with either deleting the list or moving it to the bibliography section of the
165:
504:
490:
360:
145:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
469:
293:
264:
232:
74:
66:
256:
288:
experimental exception will, in the long run, equate to leaving the article to stagnate.
51:
486:
451:
420:
319:
246:
209:
193:
542:
515:
399:
356:
112:
380:
List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing
465:
437:
324:
289:
228:
446:
415:
242:
204:
538:
395:
509:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
554:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
392:
Bibliography of the 1837-1838 insurrections in Lower Canada
352:
108:
104:
100:
164:
514:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
178:
263:may be a better place for the broader discussion.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
564:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
349:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Plants/Resources
537:? I thought sub pages are throwned upon!?
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
384:Bibliography of the War in Darfur
343:Move to wikipedia namespace and
547:12:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
523:12:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
495:13:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
483:Move in a bibliography subpage
474:09:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
456:03:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
425:03:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
404:18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
365:22:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
337:21:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
298:13:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
275:14:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
251:07:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
237:04:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
214:02:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
1:
61:11:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
581:
535:Bacteriophage/Bibliography
388:Richard Nixon bibliography
374:So what do we think about
283:My preference would be to
557:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
376:Category:Bibliographies
442:the one for Pittsburgh
327:has mentioned above.
44:The result was
525:
273:
59:
572:
559:
520:
513:
511:
507:
353:current revision
271:
267:
183:
182:
168:
116:
98:
75:Phage monographs
67:Phage monographs
58:
56:
49:
34:
580:
579:
575:
574:
573:
571:
570:
569:
568:
562:deletion review
555:
516:
505:
502:
269:
261:WP:Village Pump
125:
89:
73:
70:
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
578:
576:
567:
566:
550:
549:
527:
526:
512:
499:
498:
497:
479:
478:
477:
476:
459:
458:
430:
429:
428:
427:
407:
406:
368:
367:
340:
339:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
301:
300:
280:
279:
278:
277:
239:
186:
185:
122:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
577:
565:
563:
558:
552:
551:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
529:
528:
524:
521:
519:
510:
508:
501:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
481:
480:
475:
471:
467:
463:
462:
461:
460:
457:
453:
449:
448:
443:
439:
435:
432:
431:
426:
422:
418:
417:
411:
410:
409:
408:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
370:
369:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:
338:
334:
330:
329:Manoj Prajwal
326:
321:
320:Bacteriophage
317:
316:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
299:
295:
291:
286:
282:
281:
276:
272:
266:
262:
258:
254:
253:
252:
248:
244:
240:
238:
234:
230:
226:
221:
218:
217:
216:
215:
211:
207:
206:
202:
197:
195:
194:Bacteriophage
190:
181:
177:
174:
171:
167:
163:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
131:
128:
127:Find sources:
123:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
556:
553:
530:
517:
503:
482:
445:
433:
414:
371:
344:
284:
224:
219:
203:
200:
198:
191:
187:
175:
169:
161:
154:
148:
142:
136:
126:
53:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
438:Citizendium
265:LeadSongDog
152:free images
434:Other ways
54:Sandstein
270:come howl
201:undecided
506:Relisted
487:Cyclopia
372:Comment:
119:View log
531:Comment
518:JForget
357:Kingdon
259:or the
158:WP refs
146:scholar
92:protect
87:history
466:Neelix
345:delete
325:Neelix
290:Neelix
285:delete
257:WP:LIB
229:Drmies
130:Google
96:delete
452:talk
421:talk
390:, or
220:Hmmm.
210:talk
173:JSTOR
134:books
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
543:talk
491:talk
470:talk
400:talk
361:talk
333:talk
294:talk
247:talk
233:talk
225:keep
166:FENS
140:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
447:DGG
416:DGG
243:NVO
205:DGG
180:TWL
117:– (
545:)
539:Rl
493:)
472:)
454:)
423:)
402:)
396:Rl
394:.
386:,
382:,
378:?
363:)
335:)
296:)
249:)
235:)
212:)
160:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
541:(
489:(
468:(
450:(
419:(
398:(
359:(
331:(
292:(
245:(
231:(
208:(
184:)
176:·
170:·
162:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
137:·
132:(
124:(
121:)
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.