Talk:Antiquarian science books

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies 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.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Science Taskforce (assessed as Mid-importance).

‹See TfM›

Physics: Publications / History Mid‑importance

	Physics portal 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Publications Taskforce.
	This article is supported by History Taskforce.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 articles

Untitled

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquarian science book → Antiquarian science books — This concerns the genre of books, rather than a single book. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - "Antiquarian science book" as a title for an article has always sounded a little odd to me. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This shall not be an article!!!

Articles on "antiquarian books" are meaningless for encyclopedic purposes, they shall be avoided!!!Undead Herle King (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

um, why? have you heard about the "Pokemon test"? Bibliophilia is as least as notable a hobby I should say. --dab (𒁳) 15:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree, this list is related to the major milestones in science, which is of course valuable for encyclopedic purposes Mario C (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prices

Quoting prices for specific known sales or auctions of the works listed here would be interesting, but come on, no references? How is this even making sense? You need to state when and where exactly the cited price was paid, otherwise this is just random uncited white noise. --dab (𒁳) 15:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, I agree more are needed, but after reviewing the list of books I consider it pretty interesting so I have added more references. Mario C (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as I suspected, these are just random figures somebody pulled out of their nose. They gave "$110,000" for Copernicus' 1543 (not 1542 as incorrectly stated) De revolutionibus . If you bought this book at this price, you should have it closely examined, because you underpaid it by a factor of 20. Either you spent 110k on a cheap fake, or you just made a 2 millions' profit. Either way, these numbers need to be sourced, or they need to go. --dab (𒁳) 16:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out this misinformation is due to User:BookWormHR, a self-described member of the top thousandth in terms of intelligence. It annoys me to no end when people on Wikipedia throw around claims on degrees or, even better, intelligence, and then do stupid shit like this. Better to let your actions speak for your intelligence, or competence, I say. --dab (𒁳) 16:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antiquarian science books. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]