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

Indexes This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.IndexesWikipedia:WikiProject IndexesTemplate:WikiProject IndexesIndexes articles Evolutionary biology High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This should ultimately be an alpha-ordered list like List of biology topics and List of biochemistry topics, we can have a theme list in the Wikipedia namespace (like Wikipedia:Biology basic topics). --Lexor|Talk 17:32, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few entries. There should be a policy on what type of articles should be posted here. Also, Newbie question, Is there a way to automate the placement of an entry (alphabetically)?--174.88.97.115 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not objecting to including The Selfish Gene, but there are so many books (not to mention important articles about evolution, like Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution) which have Wikipedia articles that this list is apt to be swamped with mentions of them. There has to be a limit. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are not many books that have made such a tremendous impact, perhaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not objecting to this particular listing. And I am not about to make suggestions for other books which have had as much impact. I'm concerned that it would be easy to argue for so many books worth mention. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nor am I, and I shouldn't worry about it too much: people don't read serious books much any more. And as I recall a manager saying once, we can cross that bridge when it falls down. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, if you are correct, then I say that there is no point in talking about serious issues. We should dedicate Wikipedia to documenting the press releases of famous people and the backstories of media franchises. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B-league sportsmen (one match played) and Internet startups (3 identical press releases in reliable sources). Keep smiling. Actually, I was wondering about including Endless Forms Most Beautiful, not only excellent but much admired and the winner of quite a few prizes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added that, given that the title is a famous quote from Darwin. And is "This View of Life", but there is no article with that title. TomS TDotO (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]