Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Archive 1

message: Im doing some automated and manual fixes to the pages that use the journals infobox, and coming across some work to be done so I'll list them here until I have time to work on them (unless someone beats me to it :-) ):
* Journal of African American History - needs to be wikified
* Molecular Plant Pathology - I've replaced an invalid ISSN with an OCLC; can we track down the real ISSN?
John Vandenberg 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some cleanup work.. 

message: In case anyone is keen to hit the stacks, here is an unanswered journal related question that I asked: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_August_4#Southern_Literary_Journal_and_Monthly_Magazine.  There are two others that google can find: .  John Vandenberg 11:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't have access to a library with those, but I've replied over there with some thoughts. Carcharoth 12:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unanswered humanities help desk question 

message: Copied from an announcement by Lambiam in Wikiproject CS:
European Conference on Artificial Intelligence is on AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. —David Eppstein 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I've got a bit behind on checking AfD. Both Music Theory Spectrum & Symbolic Interaction (journal) were kept. Espresso Addict 05:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And again I think you're heroes, defending treasures the rest of the community don't realize they're sitting on. Alastair Haines 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion on that AfD on European Conference on Artificial Intelligence is going as keep, but it is a relatively week and poorly documented article. we really need to do considerably better and the ease of this AfD may not hold as more people notice.  To a certain extent AfD often accepts articles on computer science and technology if some well known people speak for them strongly enough, even if the references are deficient; this does not happen as easily on most other subjects. DGG (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Science and medicine in general seem to do better than humanities and arts at AfD. I suspect it reflects the balance of backgrounds of contributors to Wikipedia. Espresso Addict 08:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, and the perhaps the personalities of people in the disciplines also. An old theory that's been exploded (unless useful in teaching) gets scrapped in the sciences. In the humanities, there are a thousand ways to analyze dead issues. I spend my life reading languages no one has spoken for 3,000 years! I try to understand why people who were wrong disagreed with other people who were also wrong, but in a different way, then show that medieval commentators misunderstood the disagreement. No wonder I'm wrong headed about notability. ;) Alastair Haines 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Conference on Artificial Intelligence on AFD 

message: While looking around, I found Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Infobox Journal Update Bot and Template:Infobox nursing journal. Just noting them here. Carcharoth 23:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template seems to be used on only one nursing journal article. Others listed in List of nursing journals seem to use the general template for journals, although the list is mostly redlinks. I suggest we put the nursing template up for deletion as redundant. --Bduke 23:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Who wants to do the honours? Carcharoth 00:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. John Vandenberg 06:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Found the discussion here, from about two years ago. I think a separate stub for non-scientific journals is definitely needed. Anyone here know enough about stubs? I'm going to drop a note to the people involved in that old discussion. Carcharoth 00:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me as if a separate journal-stub would be very sensible, and indeed envisaged in that very discussion.  Perhaps "upmerged" (i.e. feeding into a more general stub category) pro temps if there's still concerns about this being rather small for a full-fledged stub type.  (60 or more articles is "traditional".)  You might want to list this at WP:WSS/P given the prior deletion, just to avoid any confusion.  Alai 00:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed so. When the stub type was changed, almost all the journals with stub articles were scientific - the few arts/humanities journals there were very probably got moved to magazine-stub, which isn't really appropriate. By normal stub sorting practice, x-journal-stub would imply that a parent journal-stub would exist, so it's surprising that we haven't got one, considering we have sci-journal-stub. A proposal at WP:WSS/P would very probably get quickly approved with no fuss, if there are indeed as many as you suggest (the usual guideline - as Alai points out - is 60 stubs, but that's reduced somewhat if it's the main stub type of a wikiproject, which it would be in this case). Grutness...wha? 01:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh, WPJ, I managed not to notice that.  That, plus the existing subcat-to-be, essentially reduces the requisite number to the proverbial reasonable smattering.  Alai 03:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who has recently shoveled out the  (and found many a journal), I guarantee you at least 30+ if not 60. Cheers, Her Pegship  (tis herself) 04:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other stuff 

message: Rather than re-inventing the wheel, can those who engaged in previous discussions list them here? The best places I've found so far have been Template talk:Infobox Journal, Wikipedia talk:List of missing journals and Wikipedia:List of missing journals/Queue and Wikipedia talk:List of missing journals/Queue. Could someone add notes to those places so people watching those pages become aware of this project? Carcharoth 00:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous discussions 

message: I've just taken a snapshot of the pages transcluding Template:Infobox Journal, and a more imprecise snapshot of the articles in :Category:Journals. This latter list is not in good condition, as the category structure needs a little tidying first. I've now also added a snapshot for the sci-journal stub template, which has some amount of overlap with the other lists.
*Template:Infobox Journal/transclusions snapshot (606 entries) - recent changes
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Sci-journal-stub transclusions snapshot (642 entries) - recent changes
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Pages (2123 entries) - recent changes
All need to be updated regularly in order for the related changes link to cover new articles. Carcharoth 00:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of pages and recent changes links 

message: Could I have some thoughts on bugzilla:3663, in regards to Template talk:Infobox Journal#Link to NLM and Wikipedia_talk:Book_sources#ISSN request (moved from ToDo).  IIRC there are browser extensions that we can feed microformats to as a simple/initial solution to handle this. John Vandenberg 13:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bug 3663 

message: On :de:Astronomische Nachrichten the ISSN is placed where the GEO coords are normally placed.  This is done with :de:Template:ISSN-Link. John Vandenberg 04:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German ISSN's 

message: I would like to establish additional articles on conference series. this seems to have some real 3rd party documentation, so lets see how it goes. DGG (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes society newsletters print reports from attendees of recent conferences; I just saw one on the latest ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing in the most recent issue of SIGACT News, for instance. I think we could use those as 3rd party sources. In this case, STOC and SIGACT News are both sponsored by the same organization, but the editorial structures of the two are independent from each other, and in many cases they wouldn't even be that closely related. —David Eppstein 07:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should stick to the really big & long-established international conference series to start with, and see what the community thinks? I've been asked to remove red links to conferences from society/publisher articles in the past. I suspect independent, non-trivial sources might be hard to find for most conferences, and sources based in the sponsoring organisation would not usually be considered independent. Espresso Addict 07:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've not seen any of the well-known biomedical conferences and there must be hundreds. A list approach might be a good way to start. Espresso Addict 19:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys are great! I hadn't thought of conferences. Hmmm, neutrality, I think that can end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater — responsible organizations can be so specialized as not to attract much 3rd party attention, but whatever. Anyway, listing bigger conferences sounds like an awesome idea, makes another part of the process more transparent. This is a massive project and ultimately so helpful. Alastair Haines 14:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[International Symposium on Graph Drawing]] 

message: Would awards from scientific and other academic societies be within the scope of this project? The awards pages are fairly easy to maintain, as they are usually just lists, and can also provide ideas for stubs of scientists and other academics that can be created. Have a look at :Category:Awards, :Category:Awards by subject, and :Category:Science and engineering awards. The awards articles I've worked on include Royal Medal, Willard Gibbs Award and (most recently) Louis-Jeantet Prize for Medicine. The same sort of questions of notability seem to arise, with pretty much the same answer. Someone receiving awards, or publishing in a journal, seem to be ways of measuring notability. Gauging the notability of said journals or awards, and the societies that publish/award them seems to be a bit harder, but I think it would be good to include societies, awards, journals, and journal publishers all in one area. Not sure if there is an umbrella term to cover all this, but maybe "Academic publishing and administration"? Is it worth setting up a 'shell' parent wikiproject to make all this clearer, or would that confuse things? Carcharoth 12:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The trick, as you note, is determining which awards to include and which not.  My own resume in real life includes a number of awards.  But I can't think of an easy way to determine which awards have merit, and which do not.  I mean, obviously the Nobel Prize does; the "Best Freshman of the Year of Transylvania University" does not.  But where's the line in between?  Obviously the Rhodes Scholars should have a page, but should the individual Rhodes Scholars be listed?  Should the Rhodes Scholarship be a factor in notability?  Maybe we need a workshop page to hammer out all these issues of inclusion?  For prizes, journals, conferences and societies.  We start conversations here but they keep getting lost in the flow of new threads. --JayHenry 20:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of the project (awards) 

message: Some weird stuff at an ANI thread concerning something called the Institute for Human Thermodynamics, with an associated journal. Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sadi Carnot, and in particular at the  http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/index.html website ,  http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/About-IOHT.html institute  and  http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Journal.html journal . If those here who know how to tell a genuine journal from bogus one could add comments both here and over there, that would be great. Carcharoth 13:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic-type stuff in ANI thread 

message: Jacob Jaygbay, Jr. is up for AfD. I'm not sure whether it belongs in this project's deletion page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators, or what (so I have defaulted to adding it to neither) but he seems to have some involvement with African scholarly publishing, and has some scholarly papers of his own on that subject. —David Eppstein 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is a really tricky one. I commented there that he is one of the leading authors in a very very narrow subject. His few papers represents a good fraction of the literature on african scholarly journals. DGG (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added it to the project deletion subpage. As long as the volume of items doesn't become unmanageable, monitoring those with only a minor connection to the project seems no problem. Espresso Addict 15:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacob Jaygbay, Jr. 

message: Could someone here review the MDPI article and the articles on the MDPI journals? I have some concerns about some of these articles, but I don't want to say any more unless I prejudice the response. Carcharoth 15:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Different journal, same area, Molecular Diversity. Carcharoth 15:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: My impression is that it's the same people as the ones behind the recent Sadi Carnot kerfuffle. I can't find any reliable sources on this group. —David Eppstein 16:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's frustrating, because it all seems to hang together, but things never quite click and it seems to hover in some limbo state. Is it a small, new, respectable organisation, or something altogther less reliable? I just can't tell. Lots of names and qualifications, but what do they really mean? Carcharoth 16:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: the comment is that only part of the content is Open access, which makes them what is called hybrid open access journals-- and that this applies only to some titles--and the posting is 2 years ago. I'll check current status.  As liblicense-l is the main information source in its area, referred to very widely, and moderated responsibly (by Ann Okerson of Yale), it might well be considered a Reliable source  (& the author of this comment is a well known & responsible European librarian)--which would, ironically, count towards the notability of the publisher. At present, 3 are in Web of Science, International Journal of Molecular Sciences IF 0.69 80 out of 124 in Chemistry (Multidisciplinary) , , Molecules  IF 0.84  (37/56) in Organic chemistry, and Sensors IF 1.37 (37/68) in Analytical Chemistry, are indexed in Web of Science. This is not great, but not negligible.  I'll check on the others. Sadi sometimes also did some edits for respectable science, or at least used it as a screen. So that is no reason to delete necessarily DGG (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This stuff wasn't added by Sadi/Thims, it was Shu-Kun Lin, another member of the same circle. If nothing else, his work on these articles raises WP:COI concerns. —David Eppstein 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MDPI and its journals 

message: Edgar Allan Poe never worked on the staff of the American Review. In 1844, he was hired byN. P. Willis for the New York Mirror. The comment in the article is in error. Outis  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.90.36 (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging from comments at Talk:American Review: A Whig Journal this problem has already been corrected. EdJohnston 16:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[American Review: A Whig Journal]] 

message: Betacommand has generated a list of articles tagged with  ordered by size: Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Articles by size.  Note that discussion about assessment of these should ideally follow up on the new Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Assessment. John Vandenberg 08:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  articles by size 

message: This article has been at AfD here and the closure was unusually userfy. It is now at User:Nikola Smolenski/List of scientific journals in Serbia. The closing admin surprisingly asked "is there a WikiProject?". Should we link to that user page somewhere, so it does not get lost? --Bduke 00:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of scientific journals in Serbia 

message: Wikipedia talk:Notability (media) on the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (media) -- was originally proposed to deal with problems involving the notability of radio stations, but has general applicability. DGG (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  relevant general discussion of guidelines 

message: When I was at medical school my university's library came up with the most amazing tool: it installed a proxy server on its library systems, so people could access online journals from the comfort of their own home, even if they were only using institutional subscriptions.
I have been dreaming for some time of Wikipedia running a similar facility, or at least acquiring access to a similar facility. I am aware that the logistics and cost are substantial, but I also feel that it would be a collossal boost to academically-oriented subjects (sciences and humanities). Personally, I have to be selective with my sources because I have limited access to journals at most hospitals; I therefore may select a lower-quality reference because I can get hold of it, or rarely pay the library to order it from the British Library.
I'm simply curious about community support for such an endeavour, and I will cross-post this item on the Village pump to see what people's views are here. JFW | T@lk 13:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Institutions establish proxy servers to permit access from home because access is otherwise restricted. Access to wikipedia is not restricted, so there is no need for a proxy server set up to access it. ... Oh wait, you're suggesting that wikipedia purchase database access for its editors, so they could better cite references? That would be ... a lot of money. It would be awesome but I think it highly unlikely. --Lquilter (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: Hi, do you guys around maintain a kind of database of all journals covered in WP articles, containing the ISSN's (and possibly wikilinks) of the journals? I ask for the following reason: I wrote a database intended to simplify citing journal papers (and books) correctly by storing the information in a central place (http://zeteo.info, see also User:Jakob.scholbach/zeteo). Wikipedia editors can then just copy the information into an article. The database currently contains some 1000 journals (mainly mathematics journals). Most of them miss an ISSN, though. I'd be glad to be able to fill these gaps. Thanks, Jakob.scholbach 18:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this db in the public domain or GFDL. I see no copyright statement, so by default its your proprietary database. Besides the search box, it would be useful to have a way of displaying the complete list of journals. Sounds interesting. I was not aware there were 1000 math journals -- the Courant library at NYU only receives 220  and I thought is as comprehensive as any; presumably you have a great many non current titles as well. Fine Library at Princeton has 720, current and non-current. DGG (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now included the GFDL statement (see the Contact page). You can now also show the complete list of journals. (The number 1000 may have been slightly exaggerated. There are some 1100 entries, but there are duplicate items (for example "Acta Inf." and "Acta Informatica"). Jakob.scholbach 09:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: and that is where the work is in a centralized database--achieving standardization and resolving duplicates. As I am sure you know very well. Good luck with the project. Can you think of any good way for us  to adopt such a database by stages? DGG (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether it is possible to feed WP with a database like this. If you want I can export the most frequently cited journal which don't have a wikilinik or similar things. Jakob.scholbach 11:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that just current journals or historical ones as well? Carcharoth (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  journal database? 

message: Where the tag was missing, I tagged the new articles with . I left the conferences mentioned in the "new articles list" alone (International Symposium on Graph Drawing, International Congress on Industrial and Applied Mathematics, European Congress of Radiology, European Society for Engineering Education). Do we want to tag those as well? Carcharoth (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging new articles 

message: Is anyone still keeping Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion up-to-date? Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Espresso Addict is apparently on a lengthy Wikibreak.  She used to do a lot of it. --JayHenry (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Her contributions started up again yesterday. I'll drop a note on her talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I happened to browse through AfD and see one so I added it.  I'd be quite interested in a Featured Article project if anybody else is up for it... --JayHenry (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be. Not much time right now, but keep asking around and try and get some more people interested. Carcharoth (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I will help, provided it was a journal that extends back into the 19th century.  I would be even more keen on a featured list project (perhaps List of eighteenth century journals?). John Vandenberg (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As featured articles I'd suggest Nature which is (relatively) low-hanging fruit.  I think we could possibly interest other good editors in this project.  User:WillowW and User:TimVickers, both excellent FA contributors, have some interest in such topics.  I think another interesting one would be Impact Factor, also potentially useful for assessing notability.  I looked into at one point and there's a decent body of literature on impact factor itself.  I'd also be happy to work on an FLC project.  How would we ever determine if we'd found all the eighteenth century journals though? --JayHenry (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support anything, really. I wonder what the final form of academic journal and scientific journal should be? And I wonder whether we have an article on the history of journals and publishing? The 18th century list would be a good start towards the history, though maybe the history article should come first? Oh, and it wouldn't be us who determines whether a list is complete  - the structure and completeness of lists should be deived from the sources. ie. Look at what lists others have already done. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussions 

message: Does anyone think that popular science magazines could be covered here as well? I'm thinking that a primary motivation for inmproving articles on the journals was so that people could judge references by reading the article on the journal (or at least link to it). Maybe something similar can be said for magazines like New Scientist, Scientific American (the two main ones, I think) and American Scientist (found a nice article on the online version recently). Those three articles are not tagged in a WikiProject. Would anyone object to tagging those? Several issues of scope have come up over the months since the project started, but as Jay Henry noted above: "We start conversations here but they keep getting lost in the flow of new threads." I've started Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Scope I also recently started Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Images. I'll add both to the front page. Carcharoth (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular science magazines 

message: Anyone know how to cleanly archive this talk page but still keep unresolved issues here, or restart unresolved threads? Carcharoth (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I created an archive atop the page.  You can just manually copy old threads over to the archive.  If you wish to revive a thread, I see no reason not to simply move it to the bottom of the page. --JayHenry (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving talk page 

message: I see we have a recent article on WSEAS. I've seen online criticism of this organization as promoting spam and junk conferences; see e.g.   . In the interests of balanced coverage, I'd like to add something about this criticism to the article, but only if it can be reliably sourced. Or possibly even add coverage describing how they used to be spammers and junk conference promoters, but got better, as this post suggests. Google is difficult as most of the terms I try run into more webspam from the WSEAS people rather than anything from a secondary source. Anyone have any better ideas where to look for published articles about this group? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WSEAS 

message: I just saved Metropolis Project (an international research/policy collaboration on demography, and sponsor of an academic journal) from an expired prod. I've cleaned it up somewhat and added a couple of references, but more attention would be welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metropolis Project 

message: What happened to our deletion sorting page? It seems to have redirected to one on literature, in which I'm sure academic journals will be swamped and lost. In any case, The International Journal of Intelligent Technologies and Applied Statistics is now up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The International Journal of Intelligent Technologies and Applied Statistics. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only redirect to the lit. list is Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Publications, which was merged in 2006; is that the one you have found ?   I didnt know about it until now.  We still have Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion , and I dont see it listed as a new list on WP:DS#List changes, and it is still being discussed on the talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to get to Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion but forgot the name of the link. Trying to get there from the "Deletion" link at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals led me to the literature page. I was confused into thinking that somehow our unofficial deletion page had been redirected to the literature one. But I see that's a template that can't easily be changed to point to an unofficial deletion sorting page. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Easiest way is to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academic Journals as a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion, and change the parameter in the template to "Academic Journals". I've gone ahead and done this. Carcharoth (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD: [[The International Journal of Intelligent Technologies and Applied Statistics]] 

message: Started by a new editor, the journal is published by Company of Biologists and appears on their website, but I can find no evidence via ISSN in PubMed or WorldCat that it exists yet. Could someone with better search access than mine check this one out? If it's merely been announced should we retain the article, given that a CoB journal will almost certainly be notable within a few issues of starting? Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it has not yet been published. The subscription price however has been announced, . The online is going to be open access the first year.  The price is for 2008, so presumably they intend to publish this year, but they do not say specifically. Normally, as a librarian, I would order a journal such as this as soon as a definite price is available, but I might not if there is no actual publication date announced.    I will find out the situation, and update the article accordingly.  DGG (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd suggest moving the article to your userspace until there is at least a definite launch date, and preferably until the first issue comes out. At the moment, the only sources for the journal's existence that I could find are from CoB, and that does not meet the Wikipedia verifiability policy, which requires third-party sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Disease Models & Mechanisms]] 

message: See Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#We shouldn't abbreviate journal names. Some here have already commented. Those that haven't may still be interested, though the discussion started a few weeks ago. Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on journal abbreviations (Citing sources) 

message: Of likely interest to WP:WPAJ members: Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard#DOI bot blocked for policy reconsideration. --JayHenry (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about DOI bot 

message: I have created a usere box here: :User:Mdebets/Templates/WikiProject Academic Journals. If no-one objects or has improvments for it, I'm going to move it to the template namespace in a few days. --Mdebets (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  I think templates like these stay in the user space. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The other ones I've seen have names in template space like . —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: Please consider publicizing on the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals the categories at :Category:Wikipedians by access to a digital library. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created a category :Category:Wikipedians_who_have_access_to_Web_of_Science. For the moment, I am the only one in that category... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Wikipedians by access to a digital library 

message: Stubs for eighteen (18) journals have been listed at AfD here.  The views of members of this project are likely to be very helpful in making decisions.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll copy them into our deletion sorting page. Thanks for the notice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD notice 

message: The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is used as a source on critiq of the Insite-project of Vancouver. However, the journal seems to be controversial; described as a web page of a lobby organisation and not a legitimate sientific journal.  What to do about it? Could anyone with more experience (and english as native languege) dig in to it? Steinberger (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look. It certainly appears like a journal, but it lack the 2 basic attributes of any medical journal: an ISSN, and being indexed on PubMed. But the editors and contributors are definitely not the sort of borderline people usually seen on marginal journals. However, down in the corner of the home page, it says: "This project was supported by Grant No. 2005-JL-FX-0128 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. " And then I checked the affiliations of the authors, and actually read the papers: this is essentially public relations for the current US government view of the subject. The principal theme is harm reduction: 3 entire issues out of the 6, every article in them with the POV that it doesn't work.  The journal claims to be peer-reviewed, and it probably is, under the direction of an editorial board who all agree with  each other. The quality varies--there is, for example, an excellent history of US narcotics control at  "The “Local” Matters: A Brief History of the Tension Between Federal Drug Laws and State and Local Policy" by Kevin A. Sabet, Ph.D.   It's not a reliable scholarly journal in our sense, or in that of the National Library of Medicine, but it's more than a blog. Anyone want to start with this and write an article on them, go right ahead. DGG (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Institute on Global Drug Policy and its journal 

message: Currently, 1439 articles are assigned to this project, of which 162, or 11.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of .) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page. 
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles flagged for cleanup 

message: Heya, I've been having trouble tracking down the full title of an abbreviation, and was wondering if anyone here could help?
I've been trying to link all the publications at Uropeltis pulneyensis, and one of the sources is "J soc bibliogr nat sci".  I don't recognize it, and haven't been having any luck with Google.  Search engines verify that it's a "real" abbreviation, but not what it expands to.  Can anyone help?  Thanks, Elonka 16:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural Science. However, whether such a journal, or even such a society, exists, I don't know. I'm suspicious that it may be an error for the Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History. Nurg (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation help 

message: Does this project have guidelines for what qualifies as an academic journal? Recently  a journal was added to the List of scholarly journals in economics which looks iffy to me. (So far as I can see from the web site, there's one editor, no review policy, no organizational affiliations, and actually no issues published yet.) The same WP editor added a Journal  to List of law journals which looks similar, except the law journal has one issue.
Anyway, I don't want to over-guard the gates, but I would tend to keep these off of the lists. If this project has guidelines which back up that position, that would be helpful. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two different questions here. (1) What falls into the scope of this project? I'd say, anything that calls itself an academic journal. That one included. Also some closely related subjects such as academic conferences. (2) What journals are sufficiently notable to have their own article, or to be listed on a list such as the one you point to? I don't think we've yet had enough experience to write out clear rules that would make it easy to decide this question, but to get a feel for how past cases of this type have been decided, you could look at the archives in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academic Journals. My own feeling is that the standards for inclusion in the list and the standards for having an actual article shouldn't be very different from each other: per WP:RED, we don't want to make redlinks for subjects that can't support an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, not the nice clean rule I was hoping for, but still helpful. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To get an idea of how to establish notability for an academic journal, it would perhaps be helpful to nominate a few articles of what might be borderline cases for AfD. The ensuing discussion could help us when the time comes to formulate a guideline on notability for AJ. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AfD is for improving the encyclopedia by removing unsatisfactory articles, not for experimenting with policy. If you want to nominate for AfD, the obvious place to start is at the bottom of the existing articles, not the borderline. DGG (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Question was about article scope, not project scope, but I thought I'd point out Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Scope in any case. My feeling is that things like New Scientist and Scientific American and Popular Science, while borderline (and could have their own taskforce or project) are within the 'spirit' of the scope. Something like Physics Today is sort of (as far as I can tell) a cross between an academic journal and an industry news journal. Stuff like Science (magazine) Science (journal) is more clearly a straightforward academic journal. Anyway, as I said, project scope wasn't the question, but any excuse to waffle. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

text: As for project scope, anything that can best be discussed here is in scope. As for adding titles, I agree with David E: titles that are added without corresponding articles should either get an article to discuss or be removed from the list. As for whether this title is important enough for an article, it has not yet even had one issue published, which settles that question. Another ed. already removed it. DGG (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What qualifies? 

message: I stumbled upon this recently-created journal article and have been working a bit on it. I noticed that it has no impact factor. In the absence of specific guidelines for scientific journals, I am not sure whether this journal actually passes WP:NOTABILITY. I asked the advice of DGG here, who suggested to take it to AfD, but first ask for some opinions here. I waited a few days, because I had left a few messages on the creator's talk page in the hope that this person would be able to uncover a few more sources, but as I never got a response, I am going ahead now. Let me know what you think. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would wait a bit more before listing any academic journals for an AfD. Hopefully someone familiar with the field will chime in. As the discussion from last October shows, WP:N is a fairly poor guide in evaluating notability of academic journals. In this case I am not particularly sure, although I am somewhat inclined in favor of deletion. As you say, the journal is not indexed in the Journal Citation Reports, which actually does list 137 journals in Geoscience. On the other hand, it is indexed (according to the journal's website) by GeoRef, Chemical Abstracts, and Geoline. The editorial board does not appear to be particularly distinguished. Looking at the library holdings, in the U.S. it seems to be held by 77 libraries. It is not great but not terrible either. Still, I'd like to hear from somebody familiar with the field first, before this is listed for an AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the journal is a sufficiently notable one, with an interesting history. I believe it was originally an East German publication, and served as the official journal for the Gesellschaft für Geowissenschaften (GGW), the DDR's state institution for geological sciences, and was published by Akademie Verlag. When established in 1973 it superseded the journal Geologie (est. 1952), when that was merged with about 4 other periodicals also put out by the GGW. Geologie itself was the successor to Geologica, est. 1949 and apparently the first geological journal published in the DDR. As such, ZGW & its predecessors would've been the leading geosciences periodical of their time in the DDR, with some international reputation as well even considering the Cold War ethos. Post the German reunification ZGW apparently continued as the official/leading geo journal until 2004 when the GGW was merged with its former West German counterpart to form the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geowissenschaften (DGG). Its association with the German geosciences institute(s) ceased, and I presume its rights and name were sold off to the present publishers, Verlag für Geowissenschaften Berlin. The format/rationale for the journal doesn't seem to have changed much under the new owners, at least to judge by the covers/contents listings of before-and-after editions. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Would there be any sources so that this story can be included in the article? Also, I still would feel happier if we had some more objective criteria for deciding when a journal is notable enough or not. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, have come across a couple, will look to add them in as references & expand the article a bit (they're in german, but that's probably to be expected). --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Excellent, good job! Doesn't matter that they are in German, sources are sources. This journal is out of intensive-care now, I think. Still, my remark just before about criteria for notability for journals still stands in general, as WP:N hardly seems appropriate. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions requested on [[Zeitschrift für Geologische Wissenschaften (Journal for the Geological Sciences)]] 

message: Nsk92 has presented in the above section some thoughts on what makes a journal notable. I agree that it is time to start thinking about these issues and develop perhaps a guideline along the lines of WP:PROF and WP:BK. I am quite willing to kick off this discussion by offering some, as yet rather random, thoughts.
*Obviously, not every scientific journal can automatically be declared notable, like not every academic is automatically notable. When I was still a student, I was for several years co-editor of the "Communications of the Dutch Water Plant Society" (now defunct), which was held by only 1 or 2 major libraries and had no editorial board. Even though it claimed to be a "scientific journal", articles were not peer-reviewed. I surmise that this is an example of a non-notable journal.
*If a journal is included in the Journal Citation Reports and has an impact factor, it is notable. There may be other databases (PubMed?) like that, for similar or other fields. Google Scholar is probably not selective enough. How about Scopus?
*If a journal has published several very high impact articles, that would make the journal notable (I have no examples of this).
*If a journal has been the subject of publications in reliable sources, that would make it notable. Probably a rare occasion, such a journal would most probably be included in major databases anyway. Also, this may be something unnecessary to stipulate, as this is already covered by WP:N.
OK, back to real-life work. Criticisms, other thoughts and bright ideas are welcome. :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the JCR criterion is acceptable, within the fields that it covers and its other limitations.  We'd also need criteria for other subjects, including the soft (soft=non-mathematical & non-experimental, in this context) social sciences--which it covers inadequately-- and the humanities. I know of no truly selective indexes in these subjects, unfortunately.  another key limitation is that it cannot cover a journal until it has been in existence for three years, and many journals are notable before that. the third main one I can think of is historical publications no longer active. One within the period of the 60s + are in older editions of JCR, but not the current one; unfortunately they are very difficult to locate now.    Pub Med is almost totally nonselective for English language medicine, and is not a suitable criterion. As for Scopus, one of  its key selling points has been to include more journals than WoS, and I am reluctant to accept it as sufficient--possibly indicative.  . As in other fields, my view about a fixed standard which even by itself permits inclusion is that  though some WoS journals are not reallly notable, it's easier to include them all than carry out elaborate debates in esoteric subjects for the sake of removing perhaps 10% or so.  DGG (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say the JCR criterion is a good start as well, and outside of that, normal notability guidelines would probably apply. For historical, defunct, journals, for instance, the normal standard for anything historical should apply. If there is a history tracing forward to a current journal, then including the whole history and various names and changes in one article would probably be a good idea (i.e. merge stuff together). For the journals with the longest histories, some splitting up between differen period might be needed, but that will be rare. The problem of what to do about young journals that have already become notable, is, I think to turn back to the general notability guidelines again. If enough sources can be found showing notability, the lack of an impact factor should not matter too much. Carcharoth (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem with young journals may be less severe than it seems. Genes, Brain and Behavior, for instance, appeared for the first time in 2002. It was included in the ISI databases by early 2003 and received an impact factor over 2003 in the 2004 JCR. So 2.5 years after the first issue, an impact factor was available (and the information that the journal would be included in the JCR was available much earlier from the journal lists published by ISI). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towards a guide for notability 

message: Does anyone know what journal Chem Zbl stands for? It appears to be an abbreviation for a rather old science journal. I've got some articles I'm looking for in it, and if it is an old journal, it would make a nice article. II | (t - c) 02:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chemisches Zentralblatt. I imagine it's an index of chemistry papers from other journals — at least that's what the mathematical Zentralblatt is. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chem Zbl 

message: I joined a discussion at WT:N, and the result was Wikipedia talk:Notability#Journal papers! If you have views on this, please come and discuss them. Carcharoth (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability discussion 

message: Could someone who can check the German homepage please check Akademie Verlag (AV) and the bit about them in Astronomische Nachrichten (AN)? The Akademie Verlag article says "founded 1946 in the Soviet occupied Eastern part of divided Berlin", which tally with the date when they started publishing AN (1948). Both articles also correctly link to German Academy of Sciences Berlin. It's the later stuff that gets confusing. The AV article says "Since 1997 they are part of R. Oldenbourg Verlag which in turn is owned since 2004 by Cornelsen Verlag.". The AN article says "Akademie-Verlag was taken over by VCH in 1990." and "From 1996 to the present day [...] the journal has been published by Wiley-VCH. This company was formed in 1996 when the German publishing company Verlag Chemie (founded 1921) joined John Wiley and Sons." I think VCH is the same as Verlag Chemie, but not 100% on that. If someone could check this out, I'd be grateful. Also, Akademie Verlag needs quite a bit of cleaning up anyway (the German article is quite a bit longer than the English one). Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, should articles like this be tagged in scope for this project? Don't think anyone else will want it! Carcharoth (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: See here. In 1991, after reunification, Akademie Verlag was sold to Verlag Chemie (VCH). John Wiley then bought VCH (in 1996) and in turn sold the humanities section of Akademie to Oldenbourg. The physical sciences section continues to be published by Wiley-VCH. 128.226.130.90 (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank-you very much! I will try and find time to correct the article later, but if someone else wants to do it first, please do so. Carcharoth (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded the article on Akademie Verlag a little, digging out at least the title of works about the role in the GDR. One book about the censorship history in the 1960s was even published by Akademie Verlag, titled (translated) "Every book an adventure". It can be previewed at Google Books. -- Matthead  Discuß   11:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Akademie Verlag]] 

message: Journal of Physics C, Journal of Physics F were merged to form Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter in 1988, but it seems to me that they still deserve their own articles. I don't have any of them at hand so I can't do them myself, but if someone could get around, that would be nice.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glaring omissions? 

message: I've just suggested Biochimica et Biophysica Acta at DYK, but the current article is a little short and dull. I've taken it as far as I can with the sources available free online, but if anyone has access to the online journal issues or the book listed in Further Reading, expansion in the next couple of days might increase its chances of being featured. A more reliable source for the hook fact (that it was the first Elsevier journal) would also be a bonus. Thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Biochimica et Biophysica Acta]]'' suggestion at DYK 

message: An ongoing discussion is here. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific journal wants authors to add Wikipedia articles 

message: See HISTORY OF CHEMISTRY JOURNALS, by John Andraos, 2000-2003. HTML version from Google is here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful link for the history of chemistry journals 

message: Please see Johann Salomo Christoph Schweigger. I'm not sure the journals mentioned there are the right ones. If anyone has time to check into this, I'd be grateful. Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack. It's a copyvio from here. Big rewrite is needed. I've stubbed it for now. Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on. Might be the other way round. Our article dates from 2006. That page I linked says "This text has been compiled from the biographies of Schweigger available in the Internet", but links to another page and doesn't say when it was written. Hmm. Carcharoth (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This page seems to name an author for that biography, but I'm not sure what Intute is. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

text: It was compiled from this, which is a snapshot of a webpage in 2000.  The first two paragraphs of that page are clearly visible in our article. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've stubbed, added that link as a source, and left a note on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article clean-up may be needed 

message: I'm working with an editor, User:SJSJR2D2, who has been working on an article on the Seattle Journal for Social Justice, located here. I'm fairly sure it's not notable, but the editor's been working on it in good faith, and that's fine by me. However, today I was asked to point out some articles in the category of Law journals for him/her to use, with the comment that the ones s/he had looked at looked pretty similar. So, looking at a few, I noticed that there are a lot of articles on law journals that aren't really sourced; most of them have claims of notability, i.e. notable alumni, etc., however. Frankly, I know less than nothing about law journals, so I'd appreciate if someone could possibly jump in and advise the editor as to what should be done at this point. Better that someone who knows what they're doing take a stab at it rather than me flailing around in something I don't know. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 02:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knowledgeable assistance, please 

message: Since this project has a very long talk page with many conversations from 2007, I've taken the liberty of setting up an autoarchiving system for it.  I set the timer to 90 days, and I hope that I did it correctly.  (I have no confidence in these things.)  If you don't like it, or if I screwed up, please feel free to either revert to or fix it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Investigating the list of notability-tagged articles from WhatamIdoing above, I came across Video medical journal and would be grateful for input from this project as to what should be done with this. The current article is clearly promotional of a video website which appears to be run by the article's creator; however, the general topic of internet-published videos appears interesting and notable. Comments on the talk page would be useful. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar journal is Journal of Visualized Experiments (JoVE). Although it is not mentioned in that article, I know that it was recently included in Medline/PubMed. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Video medical journal]] 

message: DGG worries about journals with no IF. Well, the top pharma journal had no wiki article unitil I added it an hour ago. The two other top 3 pharma journals also don't have articles. Speaking of which, the Nature Review journals all have a separate page, but their Annual competitors are all lumped on one page. Is this by accident or by design? Xasodfuih (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Nature Review series may well be the oddity. I recall several of the Trends review journals used to have individual articles, but were deleted some while back. The Current Opinion series is also all covered in a single article. I've been meaning to re-create one or two of the Trends journals when I had sourced enough material to avoid them being obvious deletion candidates, but haven't got around to it yet -- in that case I think there's sufficient differences between the journals, as well as sufficient history for some of them, to make some individual articles plausible. I'm not sure, however, what value a series of stubs on near-identical review journals provides. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the only technical problem is see is that of journal infoboxes, listing ISSN, editors, IF, etc, which is difficult to do if an article is about several journals simultaneously. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could conceivably give all the info from the infoboxes in a table if the articles are merged. Half of the the Nature review articles actually don't have an infobox. Xasodfuih (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I used a table format with the modern journals under the Biochimica et Biophysica Acta umbrella. I recall it was a lot less cumbersome than the subheading formats I tried in draft versions. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That table looks good. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

text:  The Expert Opinion series has individual articles as well, but I'm not sure they're warranted. Xasodfuih (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature vs Annual Reviews 

message: I see that some of these get deleted and some don't. What's the policy behind this? Xasodfuih (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to upload them to en-Wiki (not Commons), use a reasonably small thumbnail & provide a bit of boiler plate as a "fair use rationale", see eg . Though many people write far more detailed rationales, I've never had any trouble with just using that. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

text: WP:FurMe is a nice tool to help write a Fair use rationale. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover images 

message: * The :Category:Journals by publication frequency hierarchy of is now available with a set of basic subcategories.
* Category for deletion: :Category:Three times annually journals, considered for rename then for deletion here
*: Update: not deleted but renamed to :Category:Triannual journals
* The  banner alias  can now be used to tag other common classes: "Redirect Disambig File Template Category Project NA" (in addition to "Stub Start C B GA A FA / List FL"). See its new documentation with self-documented sample code ready for pasting.
* The :Category:Academic Journal articles by quality page now display an automatic counter of classified articles. All its subcategories now have the standard navigational headers and have been tagged with the banner/class=category
* The main stub templates have been tagged with the banner/class=Template
* This project's main page has been updated (fixes to the header, assessment counter, documentation for tagging stubs or categorizing articles, cf. history).
That's some stuff I would have liked to find, please review/amend. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 23:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The CfD should get covered by the alerts. If it's not, please file a bug report at WP:AAlerts/Bugs.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The category didn't have a WPJ banner when it was nominated. As I understand it, the alerts are more or less only about articles tagges with the banner. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it does now, so it'll get picked up. As a general remark, it would be a good idea for this project to run a bot to tag articles from relevant categories. You are very lucky in that these categories will be very clean (ie not a lot of false positive). The alerts system will be that much more powerful.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been picked up, but it doesn't surprise me: the category was tagged after the fact. When a category is tagged, I don't think the bot is going to scan all old "category for deletion" and "category for rename" to see if it's already under discussion somewhere. Anyway, I had to populate the category in emergency and the deletion motion was withdrawn, it was just renamed to :Category:Triannual journals. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 18:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks TLBF.  The automatic counters are a great motivator.  We have work to do! ;-)  John Vandenberg (chat) 09:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  News that won't get covered by automatic alerts 

message: Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine is a non-journal disguised as a journal.   added the WP:WikiProject Academic Journals's template to the article's talk page.
Does this WikiProject concern itself with publications masquerading as journals?  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine 

message: WP:PHYSPUB has been created recently. If you find a physics-related journal, could you please tag the article with  ? Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics publications. 

message: Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects?  If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3.  Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects? 

message: This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under its scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps invitation 

message: I have set up two lists of journals:
: Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/BW Top 20 - Business Week
: Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/FT Top 40 - Financial Times
Both have copyright issues, which is why I have put them in project space initially.  Depending on how respected these lists are, we may want to ask the companies whether they would release these lists into the public domain. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two business journal lists 

message: Using the spreadsheets available here, I have created two more tables of journals:
* Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/SA approved journals
* Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/SA approved journals intl
I believe these lists are annually updated by the Department of Education (South Africa), but I am not familiar with the publication collection/reporting that occurs in South Africa.  Maybe we need to write an article about it. :-) John Vandenberg (chat) 07:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two South African journal lists 

message: I've made a request for a bot compilation of what is found in the |journal= parameters of  and . This should be useful for your project. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BOTREQ#Journal compilation]] 

message: I've just cleaned out a bunch of cat farms in Informa publications (I'm sure there are many more to go).  Given the similarities of the articles, I suspect that the articles were created by an employee -- which is fine with me, although it leads to some odd quirks, like wikilinking Ph.D after the editors' names and putting the journal title in bold italicized text throughout the article -- but they have a tendency to list a dozen or so categories for each journal, which is nonsense, and to miss the most relevant categories, which is unfortunate.  
I just wanted to suggest to you all that you keep an eye out for this problem so that :Category:Academic journals isn't any more bloated than actually necessary.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that.  I think I removed some categories from these articles a few days before you while I was cleaning up a few of the categories.  I noticed there were other unnecessary categories, and groaned, but didnt get back to cleaning those issues up. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category farms at Informa journals 

message: :Rest of thread moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia
After several false starts and bug fixes, a comprehensive list of journals cited by Wikipedia is finally complete.  You can read more about the project and see the results at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/.  It is hoped that this list will help members find missing pages that need created.  Comments and suggestions for improving the results on the next run are certainly welcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOT generated list of journals is complete 

message: These are useful lists, but should they be separate, or be part of the article for the publish. The list for JHU Press was just merged by another editor into the main article [[Johns Hopkins University Press]. My view is that it should be separate, to facilitate linking--but possibly it depends of publisher size, and JHU P is right in the middle. I';'ver asker for comment on the talk p. there.  DGG (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Journals by  publisher 

message: *The discussion on the talk page of this article may interest some other editors here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rejuvenation Research]] 

message: *I recently created an article about an academic journal: PSCF. An expert User:DGG has already commented positively on the article, but further commentary appears needed.  If another editor could lend a set of eyes that would be greatly appreciated. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *In the light of the discussion above I think you should remove the info on board members. If you have access to the Web of Science, you could add some info on citations to and from the journal. See for example Genes, Brain and Behavior. I worked very hard on that one (with the advice of DGG) and I think it came out rather nicely in the end. Adding a cover image would help, too (for licensing, look at the covers of other journals and just follow that example). Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. I agree with your editoral decisions in this matter.  In fact, I thought the aritcle was in great shape and nobody would have any more problems. But despite your efforts and those of at least four other (e.g., User:Northfox, User:DGG, User:Colonel Warden, and User:Firefly322) in fixing up the article as well as in satisfying and removing various tags, the tags have been put back into place and there is suggestion to merge it with the American Scientific Affiliation.  Comments are now requested at Talk:Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

text: *The discussion over there is not really civil, but the attention of so,e other editors might be valuable. In particular, it would be good if we could establish the notability of this journal without any doubt and merge some info on its history that some (rather strong-minded) editors are insisting on including in another article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Establishing notability is truly a feat of inductive reasoning wherein there can never be anything final (just weaker or stronger establishments) unlike that of deductive reasoning, which can really only occur within in the bounds of certain types of math problems. Since this journal article has received more discussion regarding its notability than most and since ultimately notability is merely something editors agree to, I think there need only be a re-iteration of the earlier discussion. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I noticed what would be fair to say is some WP:overtagging  in order to make a point.--Firefly322 (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: There also appears to be following others around and taking opposite stand just to make another point (or the same, can't be sure):  --Firefly322 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I share Guillaume2303 sentiment here: . These actions often violate civility and good behavior all together in order to make a WP:POINT. This shouldn't be happening. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: *Some time ago I added Genes, Brain and Behavior to the peer review section of the main project page, but didn't get any feedback yet. Suggestions on further improving that article (DGG has occasionally provided some good ideas) will be welcome on the article's talk page. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Suggestion: include mention of the editor(s) within the article itself (never mind, I see it's already there). --Firefly322 (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request 

message: Since we're getting a bunch of new articles from the missing journal list, I thought of having a bot tag some of them systematically to help reduce the load. See request for details. I think everything in there is reasonable. If you have comments, please leave them on the botreq page.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BOTREQ#Tagging for WP Journals|Bot tagging request]] 

message: I recently created the Typo Cleanup and Redlink Watch for the journal parameter dump. Any help is appreciated, either in participation, or in feedback. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo Cleanup and Redlink Watch 

message: I've expanded the template to be able to handle up to 10 different ISSNlabel/ISSN/eISSN. It's fully backwards compatible, so there shouldn't be anything different from your normal use of it, and nothing should be broken, but now you can handle things like this without breaking a sweat, and there's some enhanced logic (details are boring, but now eISSN can be used independantly of ISSN without screwing things up). Feedback/comments are welcomed. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Awickert (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Infobox journal}} overhaul 

message: I just created a writing guide which covers the basics of writing a "perfect stub" for academic journals. Feel free to add to it, make corrections, give feedback, etc... Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Great job!!! I made a few small corrections/additions. I would leave out the external links, though: the journal homepage will already be in the infobox and very often will also be used as a reference (if the advice on citing is being followed), so it is a bit superfluous, I think. Thanks for the tip on the automated peer review tool, I love it! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide|Writing guide]] 

message: Would anyone here have time to comment at this deletion debate? I'm not quite sure of the best way to handle this. I think moving the page and updating old links is best. Any advice would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubtemplate subpage deletion debate 

message: I find the current project to be rather dull-looking and hard-ish to browse (compared to say projects like WP:PHYS and WP:ELEMENTS). If you want, I can turn this into a tab-based project. What I have in mind is something like
*Home: Goals, Scope, Stats, Members, Alerts, DYK /New articles/, related projects, etc...
*Writing guide: Which would give the steps to create the "perfect stub" and tips on how to go beyond that
*Resources: Templates, Infoboxes, Categories, ...
*Journal dump: Journal Dump, Highly Cited journals, Missing Journals, Typos, Redlink Watch
Feedback/Comments? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, how's this? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: *Beautiful!! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving the project a new look 

message: Feedback/comments are welcome. I doubt this is controversial. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Journal_disambiguation_bot]] 

message: *Currently we don't have an assessment subpage like other projects do. I have drafted one here. Please feel free to edit/correct/ameliorate/comment. Once it stabilizes it can be moved to WP:WikiProject Academic Journals/Assessment and the open task on the project page can be checked. Next step: notability guideline... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *No comments as yet. Is that because everybody thinks its perfect, because it is so bad you don't want to embarrass me by saying so, or because no-one cares? :-) Barring other comments, I'll move it to WP:WikiProject Academic Journals/Assessment tomorrow or Tuesday. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: There is a psychology journal with the title Assessment. (I thought knowing that might be help for diambiguity purposes.)— James Cantor (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

text: *Thanks James, but as this would be a subpage in project space, not article space, I don't think this will cause a problem (many other projects have a subpage called "Assessment"). Does that journal have an article yet? :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Ah, I get it; thanks.  I haven't created an article for that one yet, no.  It's edited by a colleague of mine, but I have been concentrating on the sexology journals.  If you'd like to look it up, it's published by Sage and is ISSN 1073-1911.— James Cantor (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Speaking of notability, I have created a  list of sexology journals on the sexology page (although I can also imagine it as a list page unto itself), and have started creating pages for the (mostly) missing journals.  I cannot vouch for the notability for all of these additions; I was aiming for completeness in writing the list I was working from.  Any feedback would be appreciated.  
Just in the interests of disclosure: I serve on the editoral boards of three journals in sexology, Journal of Sex Research, Archives of Sexual Behavior, and Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment.
— James Cantor (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of [[sexology]] journals. 

message: *I have put in a request to have a monthly traffic report for our articles at http://toolserver.org/~alexz/pop/config.php. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I already requested one a while ago. I marked your resquest as a duplicate. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

text: *Oops! Didn't notice that but in retrospect I should have known that you would already have taken care of this... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic report 

message: I have created /Danish journal list from the list of journals in the Danish journal ranking/metrics "Den bibliometriske forskningsindikator".
John Vandenberg (chat) 01:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish journal list 

message: The discussion here might interest other participants in this project. I feel rather overwhelmed, so advice/help is more than welcome... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories mess 

message: The start year for MUSICultures is 2009.  It is the successor to two other journals with different names, the earliest established in 1973.  I realize that this is confusing, but certainly not unheard of in academic journals.  It seems that each journal title should have a separate article, with the "year founded" being the first year that the journal is published under that name. The preceeding journal(s) can be listed in the Infobox.  I don't know if there is an official policy for this, however.  It there an official policy?  There seems to be a need for one. Pustelnik (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation year 

message: Created a new article at Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. Anyone have more information or want to help tidy it up? Carcharoth (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 

message: After a recent request, I added WikiProject Academic Journals to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have assessed the unassessed articles in the top 100. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

text: *And I've done the next 100 :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pageview stats 

message: The current scope statement reads:
*"Specifically, we cover academic journals and their publishers, academic societies and their bulletins [internal publications], academic conferences and their proceedings, academic awards prizes and medals, and series of monographs. We also cover (to a lesser extent) student newspapers, student clubs, amateur societies, literary publications, textbooks, popular science magazines, educational publishing companies, academic libraries, archives and databases, websites, and research studies."
I propose to reduce this somewhat. Student newspapers and student clubs are best covered by the Wikiprojects concerned with their respective universities or states/country. Amateur societies should only be included if they publish an academic journal, otherwise they are better covered by the Wikiproject covering their discipline. Literary academic journals should be included, but literary magazines are better covered by the WikiProject Magazines. Textbooks better belong in  the Wikiproject covering their discipline. Popular science magazines again go to the Magazines project, unless the magazine in question is covered by an academic journal bibliographic database (Scientific American, for example, which is covered in the Science Citation Index). Publishers should only be included if they publish academic journals. Same goes for websites, only if they are really journal related (so I don't think this needs to be listed separately in the scope statement). It is a bit unclear to me what is meant with "research studies" and I suggest that this, too, better belongs in the Wikiprojects covering their disciplines. This would leave the following reduced statement:
*"Specifically, we cover academic journals and their publishers, academic societies and their bulletins [internal publications], academic conferences and their proceedings, academic awards prizes and medals, and series of monographs. We also cover (to a lesser extent) academic libraries, archives, and databases."
Comments anybody? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, we'll only get notified if they are tagged for this project... I have just tagged the AMNH article. Personally I feel, if it's within our scope, we should tag it. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, I'd better mention in the article that they publish journals, then! :-) Does DELSORT go by tags. Actually, that's a silly question. Many AfD'd articles don't have wikiproject tags. What I meant there was that we should still be notified of a wider range of "academia" and "academic publishing" deletion discussions, because we might me aware of something that others are not. But then I can't remember how delsort works and if we get any notifications at all. Carcharoth (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *If it has the  banner on its talk page, we should be automatically notified of any discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Article alerts. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope statement 

message: If someone is interested in beta-testing our proposed notability guideline, here might be a good candidate: International Journal of Computer Science Issues - IJCSI. (I proposed it for deletion as I got the feeling that the journal is too new to be notable. The prod was contested, and there are now some comments in Talk:International Journal of Computer Science Issues - IJCSI with some claims of notability.) — Miym (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If the journal would be accepted by ISI, then it would be notable. But at this point they have only applied for it. Given the rather amateurish looking website, acceptance by ISI is not certain at all. I think it would indeed be a good candidate for AfD. BTW, the proposed guidelines have already been used in AfDs resulting in both "delete" and "keep" decisions. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback, I nominated the article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Computer Science Issues. — Miym (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[International Journal of Computer Science Issues - IJCSI]] 

message: Anyone interested in a cross-wikiproject collaboration on American Museum of Natural History? The bits that would interest us are the sections here onwards (I stuck in a "main article" redlink, as I think the Library should have its own article). But there are other bits as well, and if we could get other WikiProjects interested, it might work out really well. WP NYC, WP Museums at a minimum. WP National Register of Historic Places might be interested as well. Carcharoth (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration (AMNH) 

message: I noticed :Category:Journals is populated by 177 articles, but the proper category name is :Category:Academic journals, and the "Journals" page should be empty except for the blue box.  If you are interested in fixing this type of problem, please do, especially if you can automate the task. Chutznik (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *No need to do this manually. The template placed on this category will make a bot do this automatically, but there is a "cool down" period of 1 week. So this should happen within a few days from now. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now empty. What's the next step? Category deletion? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

text: *I think it should best be left as a redirect, as we do with articles that get redirected to a new title. Editors using HotCat will get redirected to the new Category automatically and any article added to "journals" by hand will be moved eventually by the bot. If we delete the redirect, somebody might at some point re-create the category and we'd get a mess again. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Journals]] needs to be emptied 

message: Hi folks!  I've created  as a way to quickly review important information about databases that index scholarly literature.  Please look it over carefully, scrutinize it, and let me know if you see any additional fields that need to be added, corrections that need to be made, or documentation that needs to be clarified.    I would much rather get it right from the start, rather than having to correct it a bunch after it's already in production.  Leave any comments on the infobox's talk page. THANKS! -- Clifflandis (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, a test example can be seen on the Inspec page. -- Clifflandis (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

text: It is a good start. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Bibliographic Database -- please review/test! 

message: Chemical Abstracts will cease being a print publication as of January 1, 2010.  Currently, its title redirects to Chemical Abstracts Service, the publisher that produces it.  It has a long and interesting history (1907 - present), but I'm not sure whether I should put it on its own article, or leave that information on the CAS article.  I currently am working from the CAS article (I put the journal infobox in a few minutes ago), but I can easily move it over to its own page.  What do y'all think? --Clifflandis (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely worth it's own article. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical Abstracts 

message: It seems that there are many academic conferences in :Category:International conferences instead of :Category:Academic conferences. In practice, academic conferences with Wikipedia articles are also international conferences. Where should we list them? Only in :Category:Academic conferences? Both in :Category:Academic conferences and :Category:International conferences? Or should we perhaps add :Category:Academic conferences to :Category:International conferences in order to avoid the burden of listing everything in two categories?
The category tree is also a bit strange; for example, :Category:Mathematics conferences is both in :Category:Academic conferences and :Category:International conferences, while :Category:Neuroscience conferences is in :Category:International conferences but not in :Category:Academic conferences. — Miym (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I'll change the category tree as follows: :Category:Academic conferences becomes a subcategory of both :Category:Conferences and :Category:International conferences. I know this isn't 100% ideal. However, this change could help a lot with the current confusion: first, :Category:Academic conferences becomes easier to find, and second, we do not have to repeat the combination :Category:Academic conferences + :Category:International conferences everywhere. — Miym (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conference categories 

message: See WP:JCW/Popular1 and WP:JCW/Popular2. I created the last three Brain Research, Molecular Brain Research, and Cellular Signaling so we could start working on WP:JCW/Popular3.
1 With the usual caveats. This is also based on the 28 August 2009 dump, so the rankings may have changed since then.
Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Only 4 more and we'll have the 250 most cited. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've completed /Popular3.  a quarter of /Popular4 are redlinks. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And 17 on /Popular5 are redlinks.  So, we have about 40 articles left to write.  Then the report logic needs to be expanded to give us a new worksheet. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in the meantime I'm going through the most popular ones and giving them a spitshine (especially with the infobox and indexing). I've done the 200 top cited. I'll keep going through the list in order, so if someone feels like doing spitshines, maybe work on the 201-300 list (and so on) so we don't overlap. (Also declare it, so you don't overlap with someone else). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  200 most cited journals<sup>1</sup> now all have articles 

message: Hi everyone. I have put an article on Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers in the article incubator, here: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers, in order to address the criticism that was made re its notability during AfD. Feel free to cooperate if you have any practical ideas to help establish notability. Incidentally, let me anticipate that the journal is the first student-edited legal working paper series, which has been created in Europe better to adapt to the editorial panorama of the Old Continent, where student-edited law reviews are not nearly as popular as they are in the US. I have already provided references (e.g. an article appeared on the German Law Journal) for these claims. Thanks for any help you may provide me with, --Grasshopper6 (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Incubator Invitation for Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers 

message: While creating the article on the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, I discovered something quite interesting. Google Books doesn't reveal all the sources. Take a look at the results from a Google Books search for "American Journal of Physical Anthropology", here. Note that it says there are 2,210 of them. But if you scroll to the next page, it cuts off at 14! So how does one find the kind of sources I used to demonstrate notability of the AJPA without resorting to the claim that because some indexing service or another lists it, it must be notable? Be seaching with an additional word, for example "American Journal of Physical Anthropology" founded or "American Journal of Physical Anthropology" influential, or with the founder's name. This opens up the Google results somehow. I hope this offers some hope that journals can conform to ordinary WP:PSTS policy in future. If anybody has a journal which they think should have secondary sources but couldn't find any, let me know here so I can look into it. Abductive (reasoning) 06:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All Google services do that all the time. Try to search for, say, "foobar foo bar baz" in Google. It claims that there are "about 46,600" hits. Actually if you go to the 2nd page, you'll see that there are only 17 hits. With "omitted results included", you'll get 20. The figure 46,600 is just a wild guess, with little connection to the reality; just ignore it. — Miym (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not true. There really are hundreds of hits, you just have to bring them to the surface with the additional terms. For example, in the second search I give above, with the addition of "founded" I can click through 862 results. You really should have clicked on my links before saying anything, do you think I am stupid? Abductive (reasoning) 17:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google weirdness 

message: Does this project have any standard guidelines on what constitutes a notable journal? I reported University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review as a copyvio and am wondering whether it's worth starting an original article, or just to let it be deleted. --Padraic 19:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't re-create it then add it to Wikipedia:List of missing journals/N-Z.  Note that University of Toronto Law Journal is already in the list and may be a duplicate if the journal changed names.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The UTLJ is the faculty journal; the UTFLR is the student journal. It looks like it's notable so I'll start a stub. --Padraic 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability guidelines 

message: Business & Information Systems Engineering (journal) is an English edition of :de:Wirtschaftsinformatik (Zeitschrift).
From only a quick look, it seems that there is only one journal here.  Manuscripts can be submitted in either language, and the intention is that they will undergo the same peer-review before publishing.
 prod-ed the article because the English edition hasn't become notable in its own right.  I can agree with that, but we need an article about one of them.   Which page name do we use?   "Wirtschaftsinformatik" vs "Business & Information Systems Engineering (journal)".
We should have a "list of journals published simultaneously in multiple languages".  What a ghastly pagename; any suggestions on a better name?
John Vandenberg (chat) 02:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care which is the main, but I agree that should only be one article. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  journals published in multiple languages 

message: Should the newly-created :Category:Management journals be merged to :Category:Business and management journals?
Comments welcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 13#Category:Management_journals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Management journals 

message: *Some input of other editors on this merge proposal would be welcome. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

message: I would appreciate if some other editors could have a look at this article. I did a rather drastic cleanup (there were originally three lists, A-E, F-L, and M-Z), and merged the reduced in African studies journals, which I then moved to the current location. The main thing I did was removing all external links (per WP:EL) and all redlinked journals (some of them had been removed recently after AfD or PROD). The editor who originally created these lists has complained bitterly on my talk page ( and ) so it might be good if someone else would have a look to see whether I have perhaps been too Draconian. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of African studies journals]] 

message: Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:  
# supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
# opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect
Comments are welcome.  Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment. 
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help. 
===Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people===
;List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see:  Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
;Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages" 
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page",  contact me, User talk:Ikip
;Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip  02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on Biographies of living people 

message: ;List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see:  Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
;Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages" 
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page",  contact me, User talk:Ikip
;Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip  02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

message: There are a lot of journals which are named after a discipline.  When it is a single word, we always use "Discipline (journal)".  When the discipline is more than one word, there is the possibility of "Discipline Name" being the article about the journal as it is a proper name, and "Discipline name" being the article about the discipline.  "Discipline Name" is usually a redirect to the "Discipline name" article.
Here are a few where the "(journal)" has been added:
* Animal Science, Animal science and Animal Science (journal)
* Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of science and Philosophy of Science (journal)
* Public Archaeology, Public archaeology and Public Archaeology (journal)
And some examples where it has not:
* Biological Psychiatry and Biological psychiatry
* Economic Botany and Economic botany
* Injury Prevention and Injury prevention
* Medical Humanities and Medical humanities
* Bird Watching and Birdwatching
* Developmental Biology and Developmental biology
* Pharmaceutical Statistics and Pharmaceutical statistics
* Computational Intelligence and Computational intelligence
* Urban Geography and Urban geography
* Social Research and Social research
* International Security and International security
* Qualitative Research and Qualitative research
And there are cases where the "Discipline name" redirects to a slightly broader topic:
* Neural Computation and Neural computation
* Critical Care Medicine and critical care medicine redirects to Intensive-care medicine
* Eukaryotic Cell and Eukaryotic cell redirects to Eukaryote
* Genome Research and Genome research redirects to Genomics
* Laser Physics and Laser physics redirects to Laser science
* Cluster Computing and Cluster computing redirects to Cluster (computing)
* Architectural History and Architectural history redirects to History of architecture
* Sociological Theory and Sociological theory redirects to topic Sociological Perspectives and we have a journal of the same name at Sociological perspectives (journal)
* Theological Studies and Theological studies redirects to Theology
Past & Present and Past & present which goes disambiguation page Past and Present
Tobacco Control needs to be split.
And as Wikipedia grows, comparative articles could easily be written about some of the following topics:
* Nutrition and Cancer
* Population and Environment
* Women & Health
* Weather and Forecasting
* Acupuncture in Medicine
* Chiropractic & Osteopathy
* Infection and Immunity
* Physiology and Behavior
We need to decide whether "Discipline Name" as is acceptable as the title for an article about a journal. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Discipline Name" and "Discipline name" should always go to the same place. That probably means using "Discipline Name (journal)" for the journals, more consistently, and adding hatnotes to the "Discipline name" articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with David Eppstein. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  journals named after the discipline