Talk:Nature Precedings

Coverage of content in popular media
The link to the Fox News report is a bit comical. The report cites "Nature Proceedings", not "Nature Precedings". Surely we could have a better example.

Personally I would remove that section. It's trivia - articles from many journals get reported in the popular media, so it is hardly worth stating. It seems like a wikipediaism - a bit of trivia slipped in just to support the notability of the topic. Nurg (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories/infobox/description
As far as I can see from the description of this "thing", it is not a journal but a repository, i.e. a database. I think the cats and infobox should reflect this. --Crusio (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)