Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/List of missing journals

message: First off, is there a naming convention on "Journal of XXX" vs. "XXX (Journal)", secondly, what is the notability criteria on these things?  Also, the journal infobox should probably go on all articles before pruning, right? . Thank you!--Rayc 14:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work so far on getting some of these filled. I would agree the infobox should go on all articles. As to the naming conventions the standard rule seem to be that we should have "Journal of" at the start of the title only when that is part of its official name. In cases where a disambig is necessary we should add (journal). Thus our article is at Nature (journal), not "Journal of Nature." As to notability, this is a grey area. Even many of the highest profile journals often have a circulation of only a few thousand. Popular recognition or Google hits gives little help, as the majority of journals are very important to a small group of people, but little known outside them. I would be pretty liberal about creating these. As long as a journal comes from a legitimate academic publisher, an article on it should be easily verifiable. - SimonP 02:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention 

message: It would be useful, though I don't have the knowledge to do this, to survey Wikipedia for journals referred to in Template:Cite_journal instances as a potential prioritization guide for article creation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey of journal use in Wikipedia 

message: We need to centralize this discussion. 
There seems to be a basic difference in the way you've been approaching it, and what I would suggest, and we will etiher have to decide, or work from both ends. see [[Usertalk:DGG|my user talk for a continuation, at least now. DGGDGG 21:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: centralize

message: This page should have a link back to WP:LOMJ/Queue, shouldn't it? Especially since the latter says to not list here ...
It is safe to remove the blue links, right?
It is a bit unclear to me what the purpose of this page is. Is it essentially a focused list of articles to create, all within the realm of journal articles?
Keesiewonder talk 20:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  This effort has been rather adhoc.  As a result, I have proposed a new project over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Journals; the temporary project page is User:Jayvdb/Journals.  Feel free to add or modify it in order to make it more suitable. John Vandenberg 10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: bit of confusion

message: A few people have suggested splitting up the list.  I personally prefer to have them all on one page, however due to transclusion, we can have both.  There are a few ways we can split the list:
* alphabetically
* by language
* by country of origin
* broad fields
* or if we want to be anal about it, by a real classification scheme such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics Socio-Economic Objectives and/or Research Field, Course and Discipline.
There is definitely merit in cutting the pie by language, as it allows people to work on journals in the language they are familiar with.  The talk pages for each can be littered with gobbledygook without annoying others who don't speak the language. German and French would be the most obvious ones to separate.
Separating them by broad fields is already happening with the lists of scientific and academic journals and all of the sublists found under :Category:Journals, so I dont think this list should move in that direction.  I do think that we need a List of periodical lists that lists all of the lists, so we dont need to hunt around the category system to find the right list.
Alphabetical is an easy option if no better option is available. John Vandenberg 11:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  splitting up the list 

message: An article on a journal or supplement to a journal, Law Practice Today, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law Practice Today.  Thank you. --Edcolins 18:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By my standards this is a professional magazine, and unless someone can show its significance, I do not think it all that important.DGG 07:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD nomination of [[Law Practice Today]], a journal or supplement to a journal 

message: "Lists of..." aren't typically Wiki, but they aren't unheard of.  Turning this into "List of specialized academic journals" with a notation that this list is for journals that are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entry is doable and desirable.  If you add the items needed for the , plus a field for notes and comments, then presented it as a table it would add value while not cluttering up the main article space.
:I think a lot of the journals on this list can have their own article. At times I come back to adding new articles on chemistry journals. When it gets rather smaller we could perhaps start adding a bit of information on each one. From my experience with the chemistry ones, a lot of these titles will be for journals that have been renamed and someone who knows this can redirect them to the article on the journal under its new name. Note that we already have several lists of journals. There is List of scientific journals, with, supposedly, a list of the most important 10 in each discipline. There are then fully inclusive lists "List of scientific journals in X" linked from that article. There is also List of academic journals. --Bduke 22:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rather than make articles, how about a list?

message: Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics makes a good template for the remaining articles in that are part of the Annual Reviews series.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles in [[Annual Reviews (publisher)|Annual Reviews]] 

message: I have noticed that many of IOP Publishing's journals appear on this page. As an employee of IOP Publishing would I be able to create articles for these journals or would that be a conflict of interest? I know IOP Publishing has accidentally gone against Wikipedia rules before and I do not want to do anything against Wikipedia. Would it be possible to create neutral articles discussing the content and history of the IOP Publishing journals?
Journals88 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding notability, it's my understanding that if a peer-reviewed journal is real and not some group of crackpots that just peer-review each other's work and call it a journal, it belongs in Wikipedia at least as a stub.  This is particularly true if it's subscribed to by at least a couple of major research-university libraries that are independent of the publisher and of each other, listed in Google Scholar, or used as a reference for another Wikipedia article.  I'm sure there are thousands of obscure journals that meet at least one of these criteria.  With apologies to Jimbo and Wikipedia admins everywhere, The Journal of Wiki Wisdom published by Jimbo Wales, peer-reviewed by Wikipedia admins, and subscribed to by Jimbo's alma mater would not qualify. :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the standard is a little higher than this. There is probably good reason to say that a regularly produced journal, published by a reputable publisher or university, listed in the standard directories such as Ulrich's, indexed by standard indexing services, or more than trivial circulation,  and generally held by research libraries specializing in the field, is notable. This is not quite the same. Articles should be prepared to demonstrate these factors. DGG (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interest 

message: Removed the following from the list (the other blue links were redirects, so articles still needed for those):
*Wilson Library Bulletin
*Southern Literary Journal
*Sociological Forum
*Phoenix (journal)
*Pacific Historical Review
*Midwest Studies in Philosophy
*Journal of Social History
*Journal of Paleontology
*Journal of Mammalogy
*International Journal of Astrobiology
*Intercultural Pragmatics
*IEEE Wireless Communications
*IEEE Communications Letters
*IEEE Communications Magazine
*Hebraica (journal)
*European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
*European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry
*Children & Society
*The Bryologist
*Astrobiology (journal)
*Annals of Botany
*American Ethnologist
That's a total of 22 new articles. Carcharoth 11:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidied list and removed journals that have articles 

message: Several web browsers choke on reading the article, so I split it into sub-pages:
Wikipedia:List of missing journals/A-C, Wikipedia:List of missing journals/D-I, Wikipedia:List of missing journals/J-M, and Wikipedia:List of missing journals/N-Z.
Wikipedia:List of missing journals redirects to Wikipedia:List of missing journals/A-C.
All the talk pages redirect to Wikipedia talk:List of missing journals.
All sections transclude Wikipedia:List of missing journals/header.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split into sections

message: I see that part of the reason for this part of the project was to have more information on the various sources used to compile articles.  A goal I applaud.  I would like to be able to go to a source with an independent evaluation of a journal using a link. (The Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ is not useful because it is not indexed.)  However, I recently came across a proposed deletion of the (new) International Journal of Applied Mechanics because it was not notable.  I have to agree that under the current Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) guidelines many of the journals on this list are not notable.  But the utility in having them properly sourced remains. Has this conflict been discussed?  Did notability win?  Is that why the last entry here is 29 months old? --Bejnar (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability vs. Utility

message: Wikidata is now creating database entries for academic journals; see Wikidata:Help:Sources#Scientific, newspaper or magazine article. As a result, they have a list of journals. These database entries could be used to auto-generate articles from this list, in the style of Wikispecies (although it's been mostly vice-versa so far, with articles used to make entries). The entries also really need proofreading. HLHJ (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikidata