Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [1].

List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein[edit]

Self-nomination. The list provides full bibliographic citations for Einstein's scientific publications, as categorized and cross-referenced in the 1951 bibliography published in the commemorative volume Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Volume II edited by Paul A. Schilpp. Where possible, translations of the German titles are taken from Einstein's collected papers put out by the Einstein Papers Project. Citations of individual publications in Abraham Pais' biography Subtle is the Lord are given as well. The works are grouped into journal articles, book chapters, books, and authorized translations. For each type, the entries are listed in chronological order in a sortable table; the ordering may be changed by the reader to group articles by subject or journal or title. Einstein's collaborative works with others are highlighted in lavender. The WikiProjects for Physics, Mathematics and the History of Science have been alerted. Willow (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Wow. Just wow. Quite a list. Some quick things:

  • There are a number of unreferenced statements in the 'Chronology and Major Themes' sections and in the small intro paragraph to the 'journal articles' section.
What would you like to see referenced? I didn't put a reference over every sentence because, oftentimes, the given reference pertained to the whole bullet point. I see that I overlooked referencing general relativity and the Einstein-Brillouin-Keller method; I'll try to get to those today. Willow (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mentioned the lavender highlighting in your nomination, but the only place you explain that in the text is at the end of the 'Chronology and themes' section. Problem is, if a reader skips that section (because it's not obvious that this is introductory to the formatting of the tables themselves), they might be confused. One solution might be to break off that paragraph and make it the intro to a new section (List of scientific publications) with the current publication sections becoming sub-sections.
  • For the lead:
  • First, per ongoing discussions, I don't think you need the, 'This article lists...' line, since it's redundant to the title.
I incorporated that and the lavender-highlighting stuff into a revised second paragraph of the lead. Those are both good insights; the article seems much better now, thank you! :) Willow (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to expand the lead to talk about some of the important bibliographical information covered in the lists, e.g. When did he stop publishing in German and why?, What were his first and last publications?, Was he more productive in some periods than others? Were some journals more prestigious/significant than others?, etc. Right now, the lead is more of a lead for Einstein's scientific contributions than his scientific publications.
I can list his first and last publications, although they're obvious from the Index numbers. I can also discuss how many articles he published each year (or make a graph); but scientific productivity is not necessarily well-measured by number of articles, so I don't really see how that would contribute. I haven't encountered any scholarship on the other points, such as why he wrote in German vs. English, and I wouldn't want to fall afoul of WP:NOR by speculating, so it's best if I keep silent. But if you have references for those questions, and feel that other readers would want to know about them, please feel free to add them! Willow (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on this, though. It's a huge task. Marrio (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Marrio! :) I'm glad you like it. Willow (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added citation needed tags in three places where there isn't a reference for the paragraph, all in the chronology and major themes section. As to the lead, I was just thinking that there might be some way to have the lead address over-arching questions about Einstein's publication history that readers might be interested in. The specific ideas I mentioned were just spur of the moment thoughts, some of which are a little trivial. But not necessary. Marrio (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are these citations OK? Willow (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - they look fine to me. Marrio (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment should the title be either List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein or List of scientific publications of Albert Einstein's Work?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hadn't realized that most of the articles at Category:Bibliographies by author use the "by" preposition. I've moved the page now to List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. Willow (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I love lists like this! They are so helpful! The sortable option is wonderful. I just reviewed the FL criteria since I don't comment here very often and I think that this list more than meets them. I've been following the list's development and am in awe of the work Willow has put into it - this is an excellent model for all of us who make these kinds of lists. Awadewit (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support I just corrected one minor error and it was really the only one I could find. I do have a few comments though. The article Works by Albert Einstein looks like a mess, seems to give no information which is not exhibited on your list, and should therefore be merged/deleted before this can go featured. Also note that the latter list is placed in categories [[Category:Physics books]] and [[Category:German books]], unlike this one. By the way, is there a reason the "Index" field is coloured? And another thing, which is merely an observation: of all the 106 bibliographies [2], this list is the only one using the adjective "scientific". One might also ask "Did he also publish non-scientific material?", and since I'm pretty sure he did, where can I find it? Are you going to make a "List of non-scientific publications of Albert Einstein"? I think you can't get away with not mentioning his non-scientific work. Anyhow, this is an excellent list. κύδος! Baldrick90 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Baldrick! :) I will broach the subject of the "Works" article being deleted as delicately as I can. I don't think anyone has devoted too much time to it; it was moved from the Albert Einstein article to the elephant's graveyard. I myself discovered it only months after I'd started with this article, although that's more my fault for not being diligent enough in searching. :(
I don't understand the "books" categories, since the list isn't a book itself and consists mainly of journal articles, not books. I wouldn't want to include those categories here, I think.
The reason that the Index cell was colored but the others weren't, was that I'd been trying to highlight the whole set of column headings in that orange-ish-yellow, which I thought complemented the blue-ish hue of the page. Unfortunately, I was thwarted by the table markup, which seems to require that I assign a colour to each column heading separately. That seemed silly, so I've left all the column headings blue and un-highlighted. Anyway, I daresay readers aren't coming to the article to be charmed by my quilting aesthetics. ;)
Einstein did publish many non-scientific works, and I've added a short paragraph to the lead explaining that. I do intend to write a list of Einstein's non-scientific works (part of a long-term program to restore AE to FA), but it may be awhile.
Thank you yet again for your insightful review! :) Willow (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The only list of publications I would ever support, but for good reason too! JFW | T@lk 05:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

  • Quibble: "the order of events" -> "that the order of events" is probably better
No, you're right; keeping the parallel construction going is better writing. Thanks! :) Willow (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of E=mc² seems a bit off. The connection to the atomic bomb is not that direct, and in the passage from Pais that is cited it becomes clear that much more than that formula was involved before the binding energies could be predicted correctly. I think a more cautious formulation would be in order.
I included that to engage the reader more strongly, but I agree more-or-less. The cited Pais passage discusses the experimental verification of E=mc² by the mass defect, IIRC, but admittedly it's a long way from there to constructing an atomic bomb. Perhaps the present wording is OK? Willow (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good now. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • general relativity "is based on the surprising idea that empty space" – such a characterization should always mention space and time on an approximately equal footing. To suggest that the properties of space are part of the basic idea, and the variability of time a consequence, is misleading.
I was motivated by the idea that readers might visualize warped space more readily than warped space-time. But you're right, we should be as accurate as possible. I added time in parallel with space, changed "act on" to "interact" and a few other minor changes. Does it seem better now? Willow (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of articles itself: clearly, an enormous amount of work has gone into this; my compliments. I have not checked this list thoroughly, but I was surprised that the "Collected papers" are mentioned only in passing. Surely, nowadays they are the main reference for Einstein's works. They should at least be cited, and for the article to be perfect, their indexing system should be used for those volumes already published. That indexing system can probably be found in the Einstein archive's online data base, as well. Clearly, this would mean a great amount of additional work, and I think it should not stand in the way of the list's Featured status, but I would think that it would enormously improved the helpfulness of this list to students of the subject.
I'm willing to do this, although I'm not clear on what you mean by the "indexing system" in the Collected Papers. I don't really have access to them, although I did find the Table of Contents online. However, from what I can gather, they only number the articles within each volume; there is no "global" indexing system to Einstein's works. Moreover, the Collected Papers haven't published the final 30-some years of Einstein's work, so I wouldn't want to make a separate column for it. Perhaps you mean that we should note the number and volume in which the article appears, e.g., "Article 2 in Volume 4", in the present "Index" box? Willow (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do mean the article numbering of the Collected Papers. I think including those (doesn't need to be an extra column) would make the list that much more valuable for those with a serious interest in this part of the history of science. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I've done this now. Please let me know if you catch anything I missed. :) Willow (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some haven't gotten a CP number yet. You've done impressive work in getting all the CP numbers up, so I won't quibble, except that Schilpp 9 and 10, seminal as they are, should definitely get a CP number.Markus Poessel (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Na, wenn alles so einfach wär'. ;) Willow (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a problem with these two in the CP? Markus Poessel (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, I meant only that I wished everything were so easy to fix as the oversight you pointed out! :) Somehow I'd missed those two titles on my first pass, despite the fact that I was actively looking for them; when I looked again, there they were! :) Willow (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entry no. 10 should probably mention that this is what is nowadays known as E=mc².
  • I think that, for the works that were part of Einstein's journey towards general relativity, it should be made clear that the journey was still not over. E.g. for #37 - that's not a paper on general relativity, it contains some first steps on the path towards that theory. Similarly for #42, #46, #47, and basically everything designated as "general relativity" until #84, which Pais p. 256 comments with "The work is done". This fact should probably also be noted.
  • Entry #107 is the birth of modern physical cosmology. That should definitely be noted.
  • Entry #119 and related: please wikilink to gravitational waves. And again, it should be noted that this is the birth of another whole subject (even if it took a while to realize that these waves were indeed real, and not just coordinate artefacts).
These four points all relate to the Classification and Commentary column of the tables, which I've intended to fill in more, if others did not. You definitely point out some important lacunae that I'll try to fill. The "steps to GR" vs. "GR" point is, I think, semantic; I'd recommend that we still categorize the article as pertaining to General relativity, but indicate in the commentary that the theory was being developed until the end of November 1915. Willow (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Classifying them as gr is fine (I assume you refer to the initial, bold-faced, wikilinked keyword for each article), but yes, I definitely think the information I indicated should be in the comments. And conspicuously so. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • General wikilinking question. Shouldn't all concepts and names (Jordan, Kaluza) which have their own entries be wikilinked? If they aren't, you're missing some significant cross-connections. In an article, that would be unacceptable, I have no idea whether there are special rules for lists.
You're completely right; I'll try to catch up with those wikilinks. Willow (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motiv des Forschens and similar articles - are those really "history of physics"? I'd have thought they are more like "philosophy of physics".
I could add that as a category, if you think it's more appropriate. I was trying to keep the categories to a minimum, so that no one accused me of OR. Willow (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but in this case, an extra category might indeed be in order. History doesn't seem to be the right category here. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I added "Philosophy of physics" where it seemed more appropriate. Willow (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's at least one theory of "Telativity" flying around there.
I only found one, and I fixed it. Thanks for catching that! :) Willow (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unhappy with the translation "Understanding the Special and General Theories of Relativity". The literal translation is "On the special and the general theory of relativity, so that everyone can understand it." The translation I have here has the title "Relativity. The Special and the General Theory. A Popular Exposition" which also captures the essential property: this is written for a general audience.
Yes, I weighed how to translate that title for some time. I knew the phrase "popular exposition" but disliked it, because it seemed not very gemeinverständlich; the reader needs to disambiguate "popular", and to know what an "exposition" is. However, it's admittedly accurate, and I'll use that if you like. The literal translation you give is good, and I toyed with something like that, but we both probably agree that it's too long. The titles "Relativity for Dummies", "Relativity for Beginners" and "Relativity for the Compleat Mathophobe" are already taken (I think). ;) What do you think is best? Willow (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would go for the less elegant, but also least misleading "Special and General Relativity explained for a general audience". Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used the translation found in the Collected Papers (vol. 6): "On the Special and General Theory of Relativity (A Popular Account)". Willow (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Äther under Relativitätstheorie" - is that half-dutch? If it's German, it should be "Äther und Relativitätstheorie".
How embarrassing! :P My mind must've wandered off while transscribing. But maybe Einstein was making a Plattdüütsch compromise—Ensten kunde en begen schnacken, ge? ;) Alles liebe und viel Erfolg, Willow (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. But given Einstein's southern-German roots, it's not very likely that he snackt platt. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Schilpp reference, and the word was indeed "und". Thanks for catching that! :) Willow (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing: Schilpp 37 has nothing to do with general relativity. Quick browsing would suggest it's about the molecular basis of a law of fluid dynamics. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're totally right again. :) Fixed, methinks. :) Willow (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, a remarkable list, though. Kudos! Markus Poessel (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This list is very impressive and nicely organized. Two small comments, though:

  • In the list of Journal articles in item 188 there is an unbalanced left square bracket in the title column. I don't know where it should end, otherwise I'd have fixed it myself.
  • I am wondering if there is a better place in the list where you could position the footnotes/references. With the numbered references being in the first column right next to the index number of the entry, it is optically slightly confusing and has a cluttered look. I am simply wondering, if it wouldn't be better to have the footnote/reference marker appear at the end of the title, rather than next to the index number. This is, however, merely a suggestion, and not a condition for my support.

Again a very nice piece of work! Alexander Falk (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Alexander! I added the square backet, and I put the references into the "Classification and notes" column, which seemed more apt, anyway. Thanks for your support and help! :) Willow (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

That's understandable and easy to fix...done! Willow (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, he also made seminal contributions" Sentences shouldn't start with conjunctions.
"However" is an exception, but I'm willing to dispense with it altogether...it's gone. Willow (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a very long sentence, too.
I shorted it considerably; is it OK now? It was redundant with the next section, anyway. Willow (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraphs begin with "Likewise in 1905" and "Again in 1905". See above re conjunctions
I don't agree, since here we are placing the information in context. These are adverbs, not conjunctions. Willow (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:HEAD, it should be "Journal, volume, pages" and "Classification and notes"
Sure, that's easy to change...all done! :) Willow (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With some of those classification and notes being so long and causing a lot of empty space in the other cells, I'd like to see a table layout similar to {{Episode list}}.
That's a possibility, but I'd have to write a computer program to re-format the whole table. I'd prefer to get consensus from other Wikipedians before taking such a large step. Willow (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:MOS says the journal and book titles should have "quote marks" around them
  • The pink doesn't help people who are reading a printed version of this article, or those who have black-white monitors, have turned the colour off, etc. MOS:COLOR and WP:ACCESSIBILITY say you should have some kind of text marker (such as an asterisk, obelisk or caret) for those readers.
The article does better than a special symbol. It names in the "Classification and notes" column any scientist who worked with Einstein on a paper, e.g., "Co-authored with L. Hopf." Willow (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links should be in their own column.
I disagree, since there are relatively few; there'd be too many empty cells, no? Willow (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now, so I have to oppose. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The book chapters table goes off the edge of the page, and now I have a scroll bar at the bottom of every Wiki article I look at :( Again, its another reason why I would prefer to see the tables formatted differently.
Sorry about that; perhaps once I and others have thought about it, it will make sense to change the table format. Willow (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

  • Not sure if I like the bold text in the second paragraph. I'd prefer it in the first.
  • I originally had something like "This article lists..." with the boldface in the first paragraph. However, another reviewer above asked it to be stricken as redundant. What would you suggest? Willow (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking just for myself, I don't find the bolding in the first sentence of the second paragraph to be that bad? The words chosen to be bolded are appropriate for the list. I don't think the bolding should be stricken; it's probably better to be consistent with Wikipedia's practice on other lists and articles, no? Finally, I note that the criteria/guidelines do not require the bolded text appear in the first sentence of the first paragraph. Willow (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do the bold numbers represent in "Journal, Volume, Pages"?
  • The volume number is highlighted in boldface type. That is a standard practice when citing scientific references. That format is also adopted by Wikipedia's {{cite journal}} template. I've explained it now in a footnote; do you think that will be clear enough for most readers? Willow (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "ser." mean in "ser. 4"?
  • Series is a level of organization above the volume number in journals. The same journal can have multiple volume 39's, for instance, in different series. For example, the volumes published from 1829–1879 might make up one series, and the volumes published from 1889–1969 might make up a second series. I've explained it now in a footnote. Willow (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check out MOS:TITLE for italicising/quotation mark use of volumes, chapters, journals etc.
  • Sorry, I'm not sure what I should take from MOS:TITLE? I seem to have followed its suggestions by italicizing the titles of books and periodicals. The boldface font for the volume number is built into Wikipedia's {{cite journal}} template and is a common practice in scientific citations. Did you mean to say that the "ser. 4" information shouldn't be italicized? I've seen it italicized as part of the journal title, including the Schilpp reference that is my main source here. Willow (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:TITLE#Quotation marks should be used for the titles of journal works
  • Quotes should also be used for chapter titles of longer works
Again, speaking for myself, I feel strongly that the list would not be improved by the addition of quotation marks. I recognize the letter of the law, but I appeal to the spirit of the law: "except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article" (quoted from MOS:TITLE). The purpose of quotation marks in a standard bibliographic entry is to distinguish the title from the journal/publication information. That has already been accomplished by giving the titles their own column. Willow (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Few more things:
    • All the "blah blahs of publication #142 above" are going to be wrong when the lists are sorted according to the reader's preference. In it's natural state, #142 may well be above, but sorted by location, it may not be. Can Self links be used instead? This way, instead of trawling though the long tables, if the reader needs to find the orginal, it's only one click away. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That excellent idea also occurred to me, but I'd not wanted to do it because of the onerous amount of work associated with it. However, I suppose since I'm gratifying everyone else's wish list, I might as well gratify my own. ;) Willow (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Internal linking done. Willow (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do. Perhaps you missed the second sentence of the second paragraph of the article, which states: "Each publication has an index number in the first column of its table; these index numbers are taken from the second volume of Schilpp's Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (pp. 694–730) and are used for cross-referencing in the Notes (the final column of each table)." Perhaps I should say that again in a footnote to the Notes column of each table? Willow (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote added. Willow (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "État actuel du problème des chaleurs spécifiques" note, "The German text is publication #63 below." is wrong. It's in the journal table above. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that problem will be fixed once the self-links are installed. Willow (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Internal linking done; all "above" and "below" references were deleted. Willow (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right that many readers might not know that Evanston, Illinois is the home of Northwestern University, which published the work in question. Accordingly, I have wikilinked every location — correctly, I believe — to disambiguate the city of the publisher. However, consistent with the standard practice for bibliographies at Wikipedia (cf. {{cite book}}), I have not included any information beyond the city name; I feel that the wikilink suffices. Willow (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The [a] and [b] ref links don't link to the notes, although the notes link to the ref links in the journal articles table only. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a technical glitch stemming from the inferior and obsolete templates I was using. I've coded up a new version of the <ref> and <references> tags for footnotes that will soon replace these. In the meantime, I'll try to find some work-around. Willow (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the original footnote system that I used. You should find that it satisfies your requirements. Willow (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few minor things left, so still oppose for now. By the way, has anything been decided regarding a new layout so the notes sections don't make each row really tall? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a discussion on the Talk page to garner new ideas and perspectives. It's very important to the value of the list, I think, that the columns be sortable. Is that possible with {{Episode list}}? Thanks for all your input and suggestions, by the way! :) Willow (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, no. :( Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well done :) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Matthew! :) Willow (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Filll, as always. :) Willow (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This list looks really great, overall. I suggest that the names that come up in titles be linked, either in the title itself, or better yet, in the "Classification and notes" section. Otherwise, for example, it takes a bit of effort to figure out that the Friedrich Adler in one title is Friedrich Adler (assassin).--ragesoss (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm willing, but this will involve a fair amount of work. I agree that the "Classification and notes" is the best column, since the German title isn't commonly understood and we shouldn't interfere with the color coding of the English translations. That suggests having to write a commentary sentence or two for every publication, to have something to wikilink. Also, I'm concerned about overlinking; how often should topics be linked — once per screen? every time? once per article? Willow (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The classification sections have a bolded topic, e.g. "History of physics." You could just make it "History of physics; Karl Schwarzschild." Most of the history of physics entries seem to be at least as much about individuals as a about the history of physics. I don't see any big problem with just wikilinking names in the English title section, either; the violet for unofficial translations will still remain in part of the title, and the link color could be changed as well if need be. By the way, why is the "highlighted in lavender" explanation mentioned again at the start of the table but not the violet text explanation?--ragesoss (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support. Fine article. However: In 1905 Einstein published 21 (!) reviews on thermodynamic topics in "Beiblätter zu den Annalen der Physik". For a list of those articles, see The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 2. I think those scientific publications should at least be mentioned in the article. --D.H (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that when I was addressing Markus' comments. For some reason, those reviews are not included in the Schilpp bibliography, which was prepared under Einstein's own supervision and which many other reviews by Einstein. Why would he discount them? It seems strange. Nevertheless, I'll add them next week, once I get back from visiting my sister. Willow (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Einstein's "Beiblätter"-articles were discovered in 1977. See:
Klein, M.J.; Nedell, A. (1977), "Some unnoticed publications by Einstein", Isis, 68: 601–604, doi:10.1086/351878 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
So Schilpp was unaware of those publications, because his book was published long before in 1951. --D.H (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised only that Einstein had forgotten about his own reviews. But I guess it was ~35 years in the past. I'll try to add those today. Willow (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added all the reviews from volume 2 of the Collected Papers. I may yet "prettify" them; stay tuned. Willow (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks a lot. --D.H (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, too, D.H! The list wouldn't have been complete without those reviews. :) Willow (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support
    • Why is there a "pages" column in the Book chapters section? I think it's unnecessary and can be combined with the "chapter title" column.
    • What are the "location" columns for? Is it really that useful to sort the locations where books were published? I suggest merging this column into the "publisher" column.
My interpretation of your first two objections are that I shouldn't have included an extra sortable column for the page numbers, and publication locations, respectively. I understand your point of view, and I'll be glad to comply. However, I feel that both pieces of information are standard bibliographic data that should not be stricken. I also hope that you'll agree that having extra sorting abilities should not disqualify the list from being Featured. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've consolidated the columns, as recommended and it does do wonders for making the tables slimmer. The information is denser, but anyone who needs the information will be able to find it readily. I placed the page numbers under the Book title (rather than the Chapter title), since the pages pertain to the book; I wouldn't want people to think that Einstein had written only part of a chapter! Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are most of the links in the "notes" column in boldface?
I put the classification in boldface to allow readers to scan it easily, i.e., for ease of navigation of the FL criteria. The classification comes first in that table cell so that Einstein's articles can be sorted (and hence, grouped) by field. However, some readers might wish to sort by another column, and then scan the final column for articles belonging to a particular field. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:COLOR, color should not be the only indicator.
I'm not sure which color you're referring to. The lavender highlighting of an entire row is used to indicate collaborative papers; the collaboration is likewise indicated in the "Classification and notes" column, immediately following the classification, e.g., "Co-authored with..." Therefore, WP:COLOR has been satisfied for that coloring. The purple titles indicating unofficial translations could be indicated by an asterisk instead; that would likewise allow me to satisfy the requests that I wikilink into the English titles. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now replaced the purple font used to indicate unofficial translations, replacing them with a § superscript. Do you agree that WP:COLOR is now satisfied? Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Crzycheetah 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After your latest edits, I now support this list. Yeah, I thought 10 columns in a table was too much and I did mean the purple font was one of the problems. If you just printed this page in a black and white mode, the purple would become black. Great job overall!--Crzycheetah 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeay, thank you, Crzy! :) Willow (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative interruption

The nominating user appears to be taking a break, does anyone want to address the opposition? I'd hate to have to fail it simply because there is nobody to address concerns. -- Scorpion0422 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the message on her userpage, that has been there for a while and she has been addressing comments while that message has been there. I'm sure she will respond to the comments above. Please note that her last post says "I'll add them next week, once I get back from visiting my sister". It is Memorial Day weekend in the US, a time when many people take a vacation and visit their families. Awadewit (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was informed she was going to be away for a bit, but if she'll be back this week then I'll leave it open. -- Scorpion0422 00:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming commentary and votes

Support: Excellent, useful, and functional! I just have a few comments in order to possibly make it even better.

  • How are the scientific publications separated from the others? I noticed that History of Physics articles are included in the list, but would that be under Science or Humanities? You may want to note the criteria used to create the list.
Hi! :) I will try to make that point clearer. The division between scientific and non-scientific was made for me in the Schilpp bibliography, so it's not WP:NOR. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done! :) Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would "moving objects" be better than "moving rods"?
Yes, of course. :) Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You gave three counterintuitive predictions for special relativity. Is there room for one more, i.e., mass is also not absolute. Sorry, I had to ask for that being a former particle physicist. :)
That depends on how one defines mass, no? I confess, my physics is rather limited, but my understanding is that the mass m of a particle is usually defined as its invariant mass, i.e., m2 = pμpμ, which is the same in all reference frames. As part of my research for photon, I learned that alternative definitions of mass such as "relativistic mass", "longitudinal mass" and "transverse mass" are actively deprecated by physicists, even for pedagogy.
I did mean relativistic mass; my mind was still on accelerators. Concerning the deprecation of those terms, perhaps that gives away my age? Well, better stick to the present! --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that you could be an aged sage, given your spritely sense of humour. ;) Thank you again for your help! :) Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The choice of colours (lavender and violet) are close so for some reason I get mixed up about the significance of one or the other. Would it not be better to use a different colour for one of them? Also if there is a co-authored article that has an unofficial translation (violet text on lavender background), it would be difficult to see. I don't think you have such an example so it is not a problem at the moment, but if another Einstein list, say on non-scientific publications, did have such an example, it would have to use another set of colours.
Very true! I've all but decided to eliminate the violet font for unofficial translations. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done; I've replaced them with a § superscript. Thanks for the suggestion, Buff! :) Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related to the last point, the unofficial translation colour does not appear in a black-and-white printout, so some other kind of printable marker (an asterisk?) would be helpful.
You read my mind! :D Exactly what I was thinking of doing. :) Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, done, done. Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to add in the instructions on the sortable list in the lead that a printout will only produce the default sorting and not the chosen sorting.
Excellent point! :) But I think there's a way to defeat that, using the "printable version" button at the right. At least I got it to work early in the writing of this list, and I don't think I used any magic for that. ;) Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I used the "printable version" button in the toolbox and that produced output using the default sort. I just tried it now (printing the chosen sorting page directly). That one produced the right sorting. So it does work, so perhaps you only need to mention that the "printable version" button will only produce the default sort. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, these are just suggestions. They have no impact on my vote. A list of works by Feynman next? :) --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support: I see my index-related concerns were address, and a bunch of other stuff I would never even had thought of.

  • I still maintain that English translation should be merged with original title (seperated with a "break") and given different fonts to maximize horizontal space usage, but that is nitpicking and does not cause opposition from me.
I sympathize with the wish for more lateral space, believe me! :) It's just that I want to allow readers to sort articles by their English translation; I'm assuming that most readers won't know German and French. The division into two columns has the advantage for long titles (e.g., this one) in that the length of the translation grows equally with the length of the original title. We may have to agree to disagree here. But if the consensus here is to merge the translations, then I'll bend like a willow. ;) Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely believe that the put-translation-in-italics idea simply won't work, if we hope to get this list passed through FLC. Please consider that this list was about to be failed yesterday for not placing quotation marks around the titles (among other things), and that mis-use of italics was cited above as another reason for possibly failing the list. I propose that we consider another route. I've done as you suggested for the first element of the first table ("Journal articles"), placing the translation below the original title, but in a nested table and in a different color. The bordered box around the translation makes it distinguishable even in black-and-white. if you and the other people here agree to this solution, then I'll be glad to re-do all the others in the same way. Willow (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The equations in the notes should all be in html not in .png format. .png does not merge well with text.
I wrote out everything in HTML quite nicely, but but was recently reverted. I didn't want to undo that edit on my say-so alone, but thanks to your comment, I feel emboldened to revert those changes. Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Math-mode re-formatting reverted. Willow (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't all the (translation:) unnecessary in the book chapters? Just give the translation, it's already mentionned at the top of the table that translations are in parenthesis. Cells are already cluttered enough.
OK, I agree. I was just trying to forestall any possibility of confusion. Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Translation tags removed. Willow (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that French translations were sometimes misspelled, sometimes used the graphie rectifiée rules of the 90's for diacritics (although that is probably just a typo on the author's part rather than an actual style decision), and sometimes not properly capitalized (according to French rules). I fixed that, but it is possible that Einstein made typos and used improper capitalization. You should check if things are properly spelled and capitalized. Remarks probably also apply to German articles.
I'll do that checking; thank you! :) Some of it might be due to typographical errors introduced when the Schilpp bibliography was compiled, but it's probably just me. :P Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, this is a list of outstanding value. It should definitively be on the main page as a featured list of the day thing.

Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 17:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly, Headbomb! Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also authorized translations do not give the title of the original work. I believe this should be included. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe the wikilink(s) to be insufficient? Please consider that, in some cases, one translation will cover several original works. Willow (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. Well perhaps of column explicit for cross-reference instead of placing it in the notes? Instead of "Title of original work" it could be "Original work(s)" with "Schilpp 15, Schilpp 237" in it or something. Just throwing ideas.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please look at that solution to the double-column problem in Table 1 (Journal articles). Thanks! Willow (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure how this makes it possible to sort according to English translation. A bluebox is too visually striking IMO. A cell split is perhaps best. I'll head on the talk page to not clutter this.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 10:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All my concerns were address, therefore full support. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 10:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is the best list on wikipedia! A small thing that is missing i.m.o., is a discussion (just a sentence or two) about the entry:

"Schilpp 278 1937 On gravitational waves Journal of the Franklin Institute, 223, 43–54 General relativity.[227] Co-authored with N. Rosen."

That article has a well known history that is worth mentioning

Count Iblis (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Count! :D I've added the link and a comment or two about the gravitational waves. Willow (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've already supported, and I'm not yet inclined to strike it, but I've just noticed in the classifications column that all the bold text also has a bold full stop, which needs to be unbolded. Also, for the cells with no other text, the full stop can actually be removed because they are in essence fragmented sentences. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that, Matthew! :) Willow (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was bold and un-bolded the full-stops. I didn't want to remove any, since I wasn't sure which should go and which should stay. Let me also say that this looks like an amazing piece of work; I wish I knew enough about the topics to officially support. – Scartol • Tok 11:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Scartol; your help is always as timely and welcome to me as "the golden apple to the swift girl"; you know how much I appreciate it. :) Willow (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow. I don't know anything about Wikipedia lists, but I'm sure I'd "support" if I did. The amazing WillowW whomps again.... Gnixon (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gnixon; it's nice to hear from you again, it's been tooooo long! :) Willow (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment A pic of the great man himself maybe? In the Chronology and major themes section maybe? indopug (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, indopug; I'll add one right away. :) Willow (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_scientific_publications_by_Albert_Einstein&oldid=1197948747"