Talk:Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology

The
The material is in the public domain, assigned by the British Neuropathological Society with authority of the president of the BNS, James Lowe March 2007
 * right, and for good measure it was not a close copy, There is only so many ways to give the basic facts of a journal.
 * and in any case I've rewritten it so we should here no more of this.DGG 08:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers!

Talk page redirect
An editor has twice altered the redirect to this Talk page, Talk:Neuropathology & Applied Neurobiology (note the "&" instead of the word "and"), which was redirected to this Talk page as the result of the article page being moved. So I would like to ask the tagging editor, Crusio (talk) why a tag must go on a redirected Talk page (that of course keeps the page from properly redirecting to this Talk page) thereby breaking any links that might go to the redirected Talk page? – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  05:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem, Wikiproject Academic Journals has been tagging redirects for years and about 1700 such redirects have been tagged. This is the first time I somebody seems to be having a problem with that and has reverted that (I actually was not aware of the fact that the tagging happened twice, I don't watchlist redirect pages). WP users seldomly go to a talk page on WP, they go to an article. In the extremely rare case that they'll arrive at a talk page of a redirect, the tag will clearly show that it is a redirect and they only have to click on the article to get redirected here. Please revert the disruptive untagging. --Crusio (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken. But why would the project want or need to tag Talk page redirects?  The talk page that is targeted already has the tag, so the chances of even an editor ever seeing the Talk page of a redirect is exceedingly small.  Why go to all the trouble?  And also, since you remove the REDIRECT, and don't even leave a soft redirect, then as you say, the editor would have to click on the Article tab to get to this article, and then the Discussion tab to get to the Talk page.  Why do you make editors go through so many hoops for so little gain?  Personally, I think YOU should revert all 1731 of those unthoughtful, link-breaking tags! –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  09:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, our project is not by far the only one doing this. Category:Redirect-Class articles contains 482 categories. Some of those have subcategories, many of them have many more articles (redirects) in them than our 1700. So you're not talking about an isolated case with just 1700 articles, but about something that is wiki-wide and concerns tens of thousands (probably much more) redirects that have been tagged as such. You're welcome to try to change all that, but at that scale, I don't think it'll work... :-) In addiition, I think the problem you signal is vanishingly small. As I said above, it'll be exceedingly rare that someone goes directly to the talk page of an article. --Crusio (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, after I wrote all that, I did some checking in your Redirect cat. Most of the Talk page redirects had no pages linking to them, and the ones that did have pages linking to them had User pages or one or two WP deletion archive pages.  So I was wrong about that.  I shall revert back to your tag, then, but I still don't see the need for such tags on old rinky dink Talk pages that, as you say yourself, will be visited exceedingly rarely.  Seems to me like a waste of a good editor's time. –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  09:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I actually disagree with that. If I think about it, I guess I just tag them because "it always has been done like that". Perhaps someone at the categories project actually knows the reasons behind this (I usually find that there is a good reason behind things in categorization that I don't understand... :-) --Crusio (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then a peripheral question for you, Crusio: I recently created Diabetes (disambiguation).  I've been trying to find the project's policy regarding journals that are listed on disambiguation pages.  The page I created has several entries and only two journal links.  Is there a minimum number of journal links to qualify?  Does a page qualify even if there is only one or two journal links among a good many other types of links?  Can


 * be added to the Talk:Diabetes (disambiguation) page? or does this page not qualify? – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  18:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any "official" policy/guideline for that. Personally, I tag dab pages even if there is just a single journal on it. --Crusio (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * TAGGED – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  19:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)