Talk:List of textbooks in electromagnetism

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating 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

Physics: Publications 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.

Engineering

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Bibliographies: Science Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Science Taskforce (assessed as High-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Split from Maxwell's equations[edit]

I didn't write any of this content. The idea was also proposed by user:Fgnievinski and others here. If there is a strong consensus to merge it back we can always revert the changes and redirect this article back to Maxwell's equations. M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 08:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books for which I cannot even find a review or notable mention[edit]

Title says all, remove from article to put here for now. If you can find reviews or recommendations for these books, please fill free to add back to the article. Also feel free to expand this list if you are not sure if a book is notable. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any development on this in the last three years? Also, where do we search for book reviews or recommendations? I was about to add the textbook by Ulaby and Ravaioli, Fundamentals of Applied Electromagnetics (8th ed.), but I couldn't find reviews or recommendations for it. However, it's possible that I just don't know where to look. It's a fantastic book in my opinion and I'm eager to get it onto the main list. -- QB2k (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar with search phrase "[author] [title] review" gives me two reviews, that have appeared in:

International Journal of Electrical Engineering & Education 36 (1), 83, 1999
CIT. Journal of Computing and Information Technology 8 (1), 83-85, 2015

I cannot share the links because I am on mobile device, but hope you find them. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Physics[edit]

Walecka, John Dirk (2018). Introduction to Electricity and Magnetism. doi:10.1142/11036. ISBN 978-981-327-206-4.
Müller-Kirsten, Harald J.W. (2011). Electrodynamics (2nd ed.). World Scientific. ISBN 978-981-4340-73-1.

Engineering[edit]

Bondeson, A. (2013). Computational electromagnetics. Rylander, Thomas., Ingelström, Pär. (2nd ed.). New York. ISBN 978-1-4614-5351-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Sadiku, Matthew N. O. (2015). Numerical techniques in electromagnetics. ISBN 978-1-4398-8304-4.
McNamara, Derek Albert. (1990). Introduction to the uniform geometrical theory of diffraction. Artech House. ISBN 0-89006-301-X.
Plonus, Martin A. (1978). Applied Electromagnetics. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-050345-8.
Inan, Umran S. (2000). Electromagnetic waves. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-201-36179-5.
Sadiku, Matthew Olanipekun (2006). Elements of Electromagnetics (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-530048-3.
Ulaby, Fawwaz T. (2007). Fundamentals of Applied Electromagnetics (5th ed.). Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0-13-241326-8.

Oleg D. Jefimenko[edit]

Does anyone know what's going on with this author? He has one book in the graduate section that I believe is self-published. Should it be excluded from the list? Footlessmouse (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Footlessmouse: An earlier edition of the book was published in 1966 in New York not by the author, according to Griffiths' E&M, 4th ed., page 450. Nerd271 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good to know, it can probably be added back citing Griffiths. I've done what I can to bring this article up to featured list standards. I am not sure if it would ever qualify, though. TBH, I think it would have been a lot easer to have our three textbook list articles combined into one List of physics textbooks, which would be a nice clean subpage of physics education. Footlessmouse (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I may propose we split these up and rearrange everything creating two new pages List of undergraduate physics textbooks and list of graduate physics textbooks, each of which I think would make significant list articles with plenty of content and there are plenty of secondary sources to use. Each of these lists can redirect to the undergraduate article and a hat note can point to the graduate article. Footlessmouse (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nerd271: what do you think of this idea? It would allow us to include tables for general physics in the undergrad page and particle physics, condensed matter, cosmology, etc. for the graduate page. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Footlessmouse: That does not sound like a bad idea. That would make Wikipedia more useful to students. But redirecting to the the appropriate sections of an article is better. Nerd271 (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nerd271:, of course, I have started a very rough draft in userspace for this User:Footlessmouse/Graduate textbooks and I want to move that to list of graduate physics textbooks in a bit. We can then move one of these pages to List of undergraduate physics textbooks and fix the redirect to point to a section, then merge the other two lists. They all go best to the undergrad page as there are way more undergrads than grad, but they'll point to the right section. I think it will all go smoothly, as there is not that much content in them all. I've already transferred over the content of this article and want to begin building it out. Feel free to join or post comments if you wish, thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove further reading[edit]

Does anyone object to removing the further reading section? It is a link farm of non-notable books. There are simply way too many textbooks out there for all of them to be added to the page, that is why there needs to be some kind of minimum notability requirement. My proposed minimum notability requirement is the existence of a single, non-trivial review or a published recommendation from a notable person. It may be contentious, so I am posting here. This may be something worth opening up a broader RFC on, but I will wait for responses from editors that watch this page first. If opening up a request for comment, it would read "Should books which have never received a review or notable recommendation of any kind be listed on textbook lists on broad topics such as electromagnetism, where there are many hundreds or thousands of such books?" I personally think that adding those books to the list is counter the page's purpose on Wikipedia, which is to show readers some of the most common and respected books on the subject that may be used as authoritative references. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table removed from engineering section. Graduate and undergraduate headings were merged in physics section.[edit]

I removed table from engineering section and rearranged books based on 3 levels: undergraduate, graduate, and computational. some undergraduate books I added are at intermediate level (e.g. Ramo-Whinnery-VanDuzer, Jordan-Balmain). I also add some of the other important textbooks in applied electromagnetism with their reviews in graduate and computational books. Graduate textbooks are all relatively generic and analytical. I did not remove any book. I also merged graduate and undergraduate headings in physics textbooks section. LEATHERFACE (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]