Talk:Korean Journal of Sociology

Untitled
Please discuss before merging. I think the articles are best left seperate and would like some compelling reason for their merger. Is it proposed that all professional bodies and their journals be merged? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

Notability
The Korean Journal of Sociology's categorization as a "core" journal by CSA does not establish notability. The criteria listed at the cited website state that, "Core journals are published by sociological associations, groups, faculties, and institutions, and/or have the term "sociology" in their titles." So the list includes ANY journal that puts the word "Sociology" into the title. That is not notable. As such, it appears best suited to be merged into the association's webpage if reliable secondary sources establishing notability are not discovered. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From the descripiition in the introduction to this article, and because it has been published since 1964 I would say this journal is notable. Specifically, the description "qualitative or quantitative research that advance our understanding of Korean society..." shows me this journal has a notable purpose. Furthermore, "The aim of the journal is to promote academic interaction and communication among sociologists in Korea and abroad." This is not some fly by night publication, and  it certainly appears to have its place in Academia. The articles published in 2008 and 2009 appear to  establish notablility of this journal. Here is the link: . I would like to find a list of issues and articles published between 1964 and 2008. I don't see a need to merge here, and I think this topic merits its own article. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another demonstration of notablility is this page, specifically see the content under the title: "Short History" Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with Steve and am surprised about this merge, that obviously should have been discussed here before enacting it. I don't see any problem with the journal's notability. If you disagree, ConcernedVancouverite, you can take it to AfD. Please do not attempt an undiscussed merge again. --Crusio (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Help:Merging - "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such generally does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merger, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merger purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument." As such, I merged it.  You have reverted it.  That is fine.  I don't really have a lot of time to spend on such a minor issue.  If you want to leave it that way and feel strongly about it I won't object to keeping it separate.  But it still doesn't seem notable as it is a journal of a very minor organization that doesn't seem to have a lot of notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally speaking, you are correct. Things are different, however, if you tag an article for missing notability and others then remove that tag, obviously being in disagreement with you. In such a case, it is definitely much better form to propose the merger first, instead of being bold. In addition, your merger deleted the whole infobox and cover image, for instance. --Crusio (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Until you just mentioned someone removed the notability tag, it wasn't clear that had happened. Apparently you did so while I was making the merger edit based upon the history of the article.  The diff where you removed the notability tag was 2 minutes before the merger edit (likely being worked on at that time). ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, I stand corrected! Sorry... --Crusio (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a policy that states an editor can be bold and perform the meger. However, the caveat is if the merge appears to be "controversial" then the next appropriate step is the merger proposal. To me controversial is a strong word. However, I suppose that controversial means there are one or more other editors who do not agree that a merger should take place. There is nothing wrong with having performed the merger in the first place, as long there were no other opinions in opposition at the time. In any case, once reverted it then becomes a venue for discussion.Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean Journal of Sociology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722141607/http://www.kjs.re.kr/aboutkjs.htm to http://www.kjs.re.kr/aboutkjs.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)