Talk:Mathematical Reviews

message: I created [this article]; it deserves some filling out. ---- Charles Stewart 20:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Shouldn't the article title be Mathematical Reviews (capitalize "reviews")? --Edemaine 19:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) implies that titles of books and other works should be capitalized, and AMS also capitalizes "reviews". Unless somebody is going to protest, I will find an admin to do so. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: it is stated that "When a work is in an unusual language only bibliographic information may be given.".  i propose to change this in a way that is true in longer term and also is neutral. a replacement would be : "When a reviewer familiar with the language of a work is not easily found, only bibliographic information may be given.". though it is not much better, but the original quote above should, in my opinion, be changed. klash23oct2006.
: I do not know why the editors decide one way or the other. I see only the result, which is what I described - with "unusual" meaning "other than a major Western language". I understand this is not neutral but that's the way it is. Jmath666 16:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNUSUAL 

message: This statement was marked by User: David Eppstein as . I concur but do not have a source to cite. I know of many articles that should have been included but were not, but making such list and explaining why smells too much of WP:OR. Any help appreciated. Jmath666 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to me an evaluative statement like "significant loss of relevance" already feels a little OR-like, which is why I asked for a reference. I didn't really mean making a list of exclusions, I meant more whether you can find a published source that includes a similar line about why MathSciNet is less used or less useful in applied areas. —David Eppstein 16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to make the change.  Feel free to edit it if you feel strongly about the "loss" but explain your reasoning and sources here first.  Mhym 16:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know that it says what you want it to say, but this link looks relevant. —David Eppstein 17:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I described the situation as I know it. In my experience, it covers all that matters with the unfortunate exception of many mathematical articles in engineering journals, even major international engineering journals. Of course the reason I know that is that it missed some of mine, and I have colleagues who ignore Mathscinet because it misses much of the literature in areas such as error analysis of finite elements and numerical PDEs. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go search further for an independent source that would say this is a significant loss or relevance. Geombinatorics is abstracted, I checked. I have yet to come across any international or US based or European mathematical journal that is not covered. I believe you it misses large number of third world journals. But "MathSciNet contains information for articles from a large number of mathematical journals" as you wrote is vague and misses completely the importance of this resource. So, why don't you write what you know instead of the "large number"? Jmath666 04:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant loss of relevance of MathSciNet for applied fields