Talk:International Mass Spectrometry Foundation

Table of conference dates and locations

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't see how the deleted table of conference dates and locations differs significantly from similar tables in other articles, for example American Society for Mass Spectrometry, Solvay Conference, European Conference on Computational Biology, Nobel Conference, ISSPIC, etc. The elements of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTWEBHOST do not seem to be applicable here. --Kkmurray (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's totally uninteresting and unencyclopedic information. This kind of fluff belongs on the website of the organization itself. As for the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, those lists should be removed from those articles, too. Perhaps I'll find time in the next few days to do that, but there's WP:NODEADLINE, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's assume that you have made those edits and I have reverted them based on what I see as WP:ITSCRUFT/WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC arguments. Is there any point in further discussion here or are we at an impasse? --Kkmurray (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We're not talking WP:AFD here. --Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC about tables of conference dates and locations
Are tables or lists of conference dates and locations acceptable content for articles about those conferences or the associated societies? --Kkmurray (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes they are, IF there are independent reliable sources about those meetings. If it's just a listing on where a society has held their a nnual meetings, it's directory stuff that belongs on the organizations own website, but not in an encyclopedia. --Randykitty (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This reference tabulates the first 15 meetings from 1958 through 2000: . This reference which was deleted describes the 19th meeting in 2012: . These references describe the meetings through 2009: and . In addition, the meeting is typically reviewed by one or more of the mass spectrometry journals and published as a correspondence. --Kkmurray (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're seriously going to tell me that a list of years and cities is interesting information? If all that can be said is that the meeting took place in Someplace, Somewhere, that's beyond boring. --Randykitty (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not even if there are sources attesting to the meetings' existence. If something significant happened in one of those meetings, it should be covered in prose. —&#8288; 烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 04:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, this is actually what I meant to say above, bu you just said it better. Just sources that a meeting exists are not enough. --Randykitty (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Would a table of annual events be appropriate if used to support appropriately referenced prose? --Kkmurray (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Behavior Genetics Association. They have an annual meeting, too. Abstracts of every meeting are published in Behavior Genetics, so there are RS for every meeting, a situation not unlike what we have here. Yet only the 1995 AM is mentioned in the text, as that was the only meeting where something happened that made a lot of noise outside the association. And even though it could perhaps be argued that being a president of this society would make somebody meet WP:PROF, only the most notable presidents are listed. Nor are there lists of recipients of the different awards given by this group. All that info can be found on the association's own website and that is where it belongs. --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you revising your original statement – yes if reliable sources exist – to no table or list of conference dates and locations or other annual conference information under any circumstances regardless of the existence of reliable sources and supporting prose? If not, under what conditions would a table containing year, location, and potentially other notable information be appropriate? --Kkmurray (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. But there will almost never be an independent source discussing the whole list of meetings. At best, some meeting will have generated some coverage, be it positive or negative (as in the case of the BGA meeting referred to above). Just a list of years and cities is not encyclopedic info. --Randykitty (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Nah, like Randykitty said, WP:NOTADIRECTORY. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No In line with the foregoing responses. A meeting only needs notice if something transpired that was historically important and of reasonable interest in an encyclopaedic context. A list of meetings even less so, and in practice it would require maintenance, so it would need positive justification; something better than the possibility that someone would say "Hey, I wonder whether IMSF had a meeting seven years ago on the umpth of March?". JonRichfield (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category for Thomson Medallists

 * please delete Category:Thompson Medal recipients, I have manually replaced by Category:Thomson Medal recipients (just discovered this page now, silly me). Reason C2A obvious typographic mistake | Thomson and not Thompson. Ileresolu (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Declined. The old category page should be renamed over the new one in order to preserve the history of the page. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, is it then possible to merge the old category page (with history) into the newly created one? (sorry for the mess) Ileresolu (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Checking the history: this category had been moved in 2011 away from the correct name (Robot: Moved from Category:Thomson Medal Recipients. Authors: The Bushranger, Mgnelu).... Digging the issue further, I discover the existence of a Mary Clark Thompson Medal awarded by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in geology. Maybe it comes from this? Also there seems to be other Thomson medals awarded by other organisations. Maybe the category should be renamed "Recipients of the IMSF Thomson Medal" or something like that? Ileresolu (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The original was not "the correct name", as it had uppercase R. - Fayenatic london
 * There is this one - Institute of Physics Joseph Thomson Medal and Prize - as well (same Thomson). Oculi (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The infobox at Fred McLafferty currently refers to this award as the "Sir J.J. Thomson Gold Medal", but https://www.imss.nl/awards.html just names it the Thomson Medal Award.
 * Looking at the articles begs the question whether the award is sufficiently notable to keep the category at all; see WP:OCAWARD. Some recipients' articles do not mention it at all, e.g. Carl Djerassi (who received so many awards that for him this category is clearly not WP:DEFINING) and Alfred O. C. Nier, and others only mention it within a list section (e.g. R. Graham Cooks) or a list in the infobox (Fred McLafferty). – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)