Talk:List of important publications in medicine

Problematic

My, this article is problematic. A list of every article in Medicine that was important? How many thousands of hours will that take? 67.184.33.112 03:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

For the aim of this page please see the science pearl project. By the way, looking at a more mature list like the one of computer science it seems that there the number of important publications is not so large. I admit that the history of medicine is much longer than the one of computer science, so the result might be different here. APH 08:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Standards in all the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls articles

List of publications in biology was put up for deletion at AfD but survived the process as there was no consensus. However, as someone who has been concerned with this Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls project for some months now, I am concerned. There is indeed a case that the material here is not free of a POV. How do we determine importance? Earlier this year the participants on List of publications in chemistry debated this and decided on two matters. First, they tightened up the criteria for inclusion, in particular insisted that publications that were important as an introduction had to have had a wider importance such as altering the way all future text books were written or altered the way the subject was taught. Second, they decided that all new entries should be raised for debate over a 10 day period on the talk page to determine whether they should be kept or deleted. Most existing entries were debated and several were deleted. This has worked reasonably well although it would be better if more people had participated. It is clear enough that it is not, for these articles, sufficient to allow anyone to add entries, as only very obvious nonsense is likely to be deleted. Each entry needs the consideration of several editors. I urge all interested in this project to look at what the chemists here have done and consider whether something similar or even better can be used on all pages in the project. I am putting this paragraph on all the other talk pages of this project. --Bduke 08:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Related AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology (2nd nomination) Kappa 08:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for entries

Please take a look at a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls#Header template to all project list pages on rewording the template that generates the header to this list of publications to make the criteria for entries to the list rather tighter and better reflecting the notability criteria of WP. The motivation is to better take into account comments that have been made when some of these lists have been proposed for deletion. --Bduke 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories of important publications

Please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls##Categories of important publications. Thanks, APH 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this page a tad bit too broad?

I noticed on all the books the importance are all the same. Isn't that redundant? Perhaps removing that category on the list would help improve the article. It helps clear up confusion. But, are you trying to show that all the books are extremely important? Spaghettiman19 (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing strange assertion

I am deleting the following sentence:

"Applying the recommendation threatens to bankrupt the entire health care industry of the United States with its cost burden the government (a one-time cost of > $250 billion, with yearly expenditures of about 10% of that)."

This assertion is unsourced, seems to be a biased in terms of policy recommendations, and makes a dramatic claim. I don't know much about this field, so feel free to add it back in if some reliable source validates the assertion. Sawdust Restaurant (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of important publications in medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040909195509/http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/20th_Century/1920s/banting/banting_whole_1.html to http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/20th_Century/1920s/banting/banting_whole_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)