This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook Physics: Publications Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Publications Taskforce.

One person under at least two IPs user:2001:4c50:19f:9c00:11bd:d1cc:c8c8:ee65 and user:77.47.80.202 has been deleting [1][2] the list of editions with descriptions of each volume, because he/she finds it unacceptable and unencyclopedic. The same thing has happened (today and a few weeks ago) at gravitation (book), along with delivering accusations/attacks to others, while complaining he/she was receiving them. It's likely these IPs are the same person. If so, why isn't the IP following his/her own advice starting a discussion here like for this ironic section??...

It is evident that at least three other editors (not including myself) find the citation format to be useful because of immediate reference. Can we get solid consensus to either keep them in (any part of the article) or not? M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 16:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per last stable version; and also note that these two IPs have also been acting similarly on Richard Parks- for which I have placed a RPP. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know you have to give a reason, right? Just blurting out "keep" is not a useful contribution. 77.47.80.202 (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Maschen They should remain. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know you have to give a reason, don't you? 77.47.80.202 (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The descriptions of each volume are encyclopaedic. The full bibliographic details are not. See WP:RAWDATA. Your claim that "at least three" people want this information in the article is false. Unexplained reverts don't count for anything. 77.47.80.202 (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Who translated these works into English? And the other languages?

RhinoMind (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, going over List of textbooks in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, I went to check on book notability criteria, WP:BKCRIT, and found the bar to be very low. I have been collecting references to book reviews and such and I am now under the impression that this page should slowly be converted into an overview for each of its notable sub-articles. Most volumes of this course are highly-notable under the criteria and deserving of their own articles (multiple reviews and widespread adoption in their respective subjects). The non-notable books can be left here, but we can include a lot of new information for the notable books. Comments are appreciated, thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]