Wikipedia talk:List of missing journals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

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)

Contents 1 Survey of journal use in Wikipedia 2 Chemical Society and Royal Institute of Chemistry journals 3 centralize 4 bit of confusion 5 splitting up the list

[edit] Survey of journal use in Wikipedia

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)

[edit] Chemical Society and Royal Institute of Chemistry journals

I have removed many old journals from these now defunct societies. Both had an unfortunate tendency to rename their journals frequently. Both societies finally formed the Royal Society of Chemistry. The journals I removed are covered in the articles, Proceedings of the Chemical Society, Journal of the Royal Institute of Chemistry and Chemical Society Reviews as they were predecessor journals to these. --Bduke 03:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Brian, based on what you have said, the articles that you have unlisted need to be created as redirects to the most appropriate of those existing articles as the old names of journal float around for a _very_ long time.

Also, I've restored a few entries that I believe were unintentionally removed amongst these: [1]:

John Vandenberg 04:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

On the second point, it was indeed unintentional. A stuff-up. Thanks for reverting. On the first point, I'll have a go but they are pretty obscure. I might not get it done today, as we have an election on and I'm due back on the booth soon. This list is very long and thus very difficult to edit. Could it be split? --Bduke 04:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly; I,m about to head down the the booths myself to vote. I'll tackle the Proceeding...'s as I have already done a little research on those this morning, and you can tackle the Journal ...'s and Quarterly...'s. John Vandenberg 04:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just done the redirects to Proceedings of the Chemical Society and some of the Quarterly Reviews to the Chemical Society Reviews. I'll do the rest later. --Bduke 04:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

All redirects done. As well as the 3 journals indicated above, 2 redirects had to go to Journal of the Chemical Society. Chem Soc, RSC, RIC journal names have always been a mess. --Bduke 06:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant that you wanted to split the workload :-) Back to your question about splitting this page: I agree it's difficult to edit this page, however I think it's best to have it all on one page so it is easy to find entries using partial matches. I used it a lot to try to figure out which journal is referred to in abbreviated citations. e.g. "C. R. Acad. Bulg. Sci." John Vandenberg 08:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than splitting the page, perhaps we can use a staging area to avoid editing the main list so often. I have thrown together a "workbench" that we can use to record progress. I created my first template (Template:Missing article)in the process in order to make it easier, and I am keen to create additional templates to assist searching inexact citations. John Vandenberg 12:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I had not come across that Project before. What a lot of usefull work. So if I need to delete a journal from the list, I just add it to the workbench? --Bduke 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC]

You removed the articles for the old journal titles? Why on earth did you do that? Now they will need to be created again, eventually. Normally, for most journals with a title change redirects are enough if the article contains the old title. But for the radical changes in JCS it is not possible to do this in a coherent way, as you recognize :) I guess we can figure out a temporary way, using sections on the page, since WP now does do section Redirects properly. DGG 21:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

After John's comments, I created a whole lot of redirects to cover all the old titles. Take a look at the three journal articles in the first para of this section and click on "What links here?" to see the redirects. I think redirects are sufficient. If anybody searches for the old title they will finish up at a place that mentions it. To have lots of different titles would be a mess. I'm pretty sure I have covered all the titles the Chem Soc used. --Bduke 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] centralize

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)

[edit] bit of confusion

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)

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)

[edit] splitting up the list

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)