Talk:Johns Hopkins University Press

07/05/2009
Redited and Re-vamped the whole article.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * well, I am thinking about whether to revert that merge. Merges if not obvious need to be proposed first, see WP:MERGE. As for criteria for the validity of a separate list, see WP:LIST. As for other changes, I'm thinking about them. I remind you that nobody owns an article here. Please see also WP:BRD. I'm in fact a little gentler than that, and to save the trouble of the reversion, I urge you now to give your reasons. I'll notify the appropriate workgroup: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals DGG (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As the sole creator, compiler and editor of the original list I felt its relevance would be better highlighted by the merge. In turn, I also felt that that the list would provide synergestic value to the publisher's article which had been merely a stub and bereft of any information of a substantive nature prior to my having edited it (temporally twice - pre and post merge). There are other University Press articles which are similar eg. MIT Press. If you feel if these reasons are insufficient, please let me know. As the person who originally created the list as a seperate entity I would not be averse to a revert if you deem it necessary. However, I do feel that the merge provides this article with additional sorely needed heft making it more profound and informative (as serves the purpose of Wikipedia) than most other press articles which merely "exist" and serve no practical or informative purpose.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the Lead Section contains an uncited claim about the organization's size and influence that may come across as personal interpretation or bias. It could be improved by adding a citation to a reliable source such as an independent academic award recognizing the organization over others for its large influence, or deleting the claim. Rlyantonio (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)