Talk:Portuguese Journal of Social Science

Untitled
As the editorial secretary of the Portuguese Journal of Social Science I removed the stub class label because it had been placed by someone who had removed practically all of the information from the article without first seeking to discuss their actions on this page. Please, before making changes to this or to the article page, raise the matter here first, explaining what you intend to change why you believe the change is necessary or desirable. I have no objection to the page being included in the academic journals project, but would appreciate it if changes are not made unilaterally and without discussion. Lusobrandane (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have restored the talk page header (again), but this time provided no quality rating. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 00:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Lusobrandane (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As the "editorial secretary of the Portuguese Journal of Social Science" you have a very big COI (conflict of interest) here. The article as it was (and now is again) is promotional, POV, and unencyclopedic. There is a consensus in the larger community that lists of editorial boards should not be part of an article on a journal. Instructions to potential authors on how and what to submit to a journal are also inadmissible. I am therefore going to revert the article to the pared down version that I made earlier. I think that you don't understand how WP works. If you want to add possibly inappropriate material, you'll first have to provide a justification here. --Crusio (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, perhaps you ought to tell me what is appropriate for this to be a non stub article, because it seems to me that deleting all but the basic information, when a great deal of information has already been provided is wrong. Surely the point of an encyclopaedia is to provide people with as much information about the subject as possible. Deleting a lot of the information, then labelling it as a stub seems to me to be pedantic and not very productive. Also, regarding categories: the PJSS is a multidisciplinary social science journal, so surely it is appropriate for it to be listed in all of the appropriate disciplinary categories, and not just in the categories that you seem determined to restrict it to. I don't want to upset anyone, but I do feel you are being a bit unreasonable. Lusobrandane (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can find information on how to write a good journal article (and what is acceptable to add) by reading some of the discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals. The journal banner at the top of this page has a link to a writing guide, too. In general, lists of people on the editorial board are routinely removed from journal articles. (This is why "pinto" is orphaned again; but the orphan template is nothing disparaging, it just encourages editors to include links to that article in other appropriate articles, so I don't see the problem with having that tag there). I generally do this kind of article cleanup without much discussion not only because this is standard procedure, but mainly because most journal articles (sadly) are not or hardly maintained by anybody, so I would needlessly put messages on talk pages that nobody would ever read. Had I known that it would be different in this case, I would have put an explanatory note on the talk page and I apologize if this has upset you. Concerning categories, please click on the "social science journals" category. What you will see is a text that eplains that this is a so-called "top-category", which normally should be empty. Articles should be assigned to lower-level categories, such as "sociology journals" or "economics journals", which both are subcategories of social science journals. Hope this explains, but don't hesitate to drop a note on my talk page if I can provide any other help.
 * As an aside, there is currently a big discussion going on about what makes a journal notable. I am trying to have as many journal articles kept as reasonably possible and reducing the number of "spammy"-looking articles is an important (if laborious) part of that. The spammier an article looks, the greater the chance that some editor will come around and propose it for deletion. --Crusio (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)