Talk:Bibliography of the Sierra Nevada

There are several Sierra Nevadas. This list concerns the Sierra Nevada (US)

Keep. What is the rationale for deleting a carefully selected list of information about a hiking area? I would like to revert this. Ancheta Wis 03:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I quote from the guidelines: You should not wipe out the contents as it helps to check the contents to be deleted without having to look at the page history. Therefore the contents are going to be reverted. Ancheta Wis 03:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that the wikitravel entry is getting the same treatment. Why.

Why was the content overwitten?

There was a {{delete}} notice with the contents of the article overwritten. This is contrary to the instructions on the Speedy deletion policy page.

To the contributor: please explain your rationale for overwriting the contents of this page. Ancheta Wis 03:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is the only symilar page in all the project. It's very usual to indicate related bibliography at the end of an article, but never there are "articles" considered themself as only bibliography. There are articles about books. Speaking about these books, but there are'n pages like this. If the bibliography isn't enought important for being at the end of a page then it means that it isn't escencial and then the page is not encylopaedical and deletable. We could write hundreds of thounsands of "articles" about bibliography but there are other projects in the net that do this.

Thank you for explaining your rationale. However, you give the perfect reason for a keep: This is the only such page in Wikipedia. At some stage in the development of this encyclopedia, every good article is the only such page in the project (in other words -- it serves as a template for later pages to emulate). I find it interesting that the wikitravel entry has a similar notice -- which tells me something about motivation, but I'm not going there.

As someone who has enjoyed the Sierra Nevada, I can vouch for the value of this list.

Your point about the need to include bibliography at the end of an article is a good one; this list, and others like it, might well serve as a source for other important statements in the project. It does not hurt to have such lists. There are many types of reference lists in the project; there will be others like this one. Ancheta Wis 10:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I followed the edit history -- one possible explanation is the treatment of another Sierra Nevada article from the dab page. I moved the notice to the talk page for the benefit of the original contributor. (As a side note, cordillera also has multiple meanings and instances all over the globe.) It should be noted that the beauty of a single location in the Sierra Nevada (US) was the motivation for the first park of its type in 1863, and all the others followed. The national parks in the Sierra have had a compelling history since then. Ancheta Wis 11:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Titling vs content

This seems to have morphed into a generic list of Sierra-related books, not just guidebooks (nobody considers Jepson a "guidebook" :-) ), should perhaps be renamed to List of books about the Sierra Nevada. Stan 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No Yosemite Miwoks

I noticed many books written about the Sierra Nevada state the false premise that Yosemite was a Miwok area, but it was not. Yosemite was a Paiute area and both the Miwoks and Paiutes were enemies and not trading partners until 1870[1]. Yosemite Indian 4:08, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Improvements to list article

The recent afd has a good side effect of bringing out suggestions for article improvement:

1. rename article Several people (including Stan, above) have suggested renaming the article. Perhaps a good title would be "List of books about the Sierra Nevada (U.S.)" ?
2. annotate entries --- should the references be annotated: would that be useful or WP:OR?
3. further reading --- one of the complaints was that there is no "Further Reading" section in Sierra Nevada (U.S.). However, there is a "See also". Is that adequate? Should links to this page be marked "Further Reading" individually?

hike395 (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Did (1) and (3), above. Waiting for discussion before doing (2). hike395 (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Alert: lists of publications in Articles for deletion

Some lists of books have been added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You can find the discussions here. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)