User talk:Guillaume2303/Archive 3

I assume..
That this attempt to create a redirect went a little wrong? :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 14:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops! Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I have corrected it! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

MUSICultures
The start year for MUSICulture is 2009. It is the successor to two other journals with different names, the earliest established in 1973. I realize that this is confusing, but certainlyhat eacheard of in academic journals. It seems that each journal title should have a separate article, with the "year founded" being the first year that the journal is published under that name. I don't know if there is an official policy for this, however, so I will post a copy of this on "journals". Pustelnik (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The usual way to handle this (and the most logical one, I would say) is that if a journal changes name, the article goes at the newest name and the older name redirects to the newer name. There are not three different journals. There is one journal founded in 1973 that has changed names twice. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Journals
I saw you redirected Category:Journals to Category:Academic journals. Even though this seems reasonable to me, has this been discussed anywhere? Debresser (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, it is above. I just am not used to categories being moved without discussion at wp:cfd. Debresser (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In this case I wouldn't bother taking it through the proper canals, since it is properly discussed anyway. There is no rule that only wp:cfd may rename or merge categories. Debresser (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Journals/magazines categories
My rationale is that all kinds of journals are (are also) magazines. In fact, the distinction between one ("magazine") and the other ("journals") is minute and pretentious, particularly in countries such as Romania (where we use the two terms interchangeably). The one assertion contradicting me (in a rather poor article) carries a big "citation needed" tag, and, even if sourced, would not invalidate this rationale. In fact, Category:Journals is a subcat of Category:Magazines (something which should be reflected in other categories, for instance Category:Academic journal editors should be a subcat of Category:Magazine editors). The purpose of categorizing is to lead from one place to the other, with search terms that are likely to help the reader, and not to segregate between subjects based on some debatable claim that two terms should never be viewed in relation to one another. So, yes, Antohi is an academic journal publisher for the specific category and a magazine editor for the non-specific one; removing them from the former was resulting in him being taken out of an entirely different category branch (the nationality-based one), for a reason that I still find frivolous. Dahn (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So, if I understood you right, your ultimate aim is to change the entire "magazine fooians" tree (and related) into "magazine and journal fooians" (and related). That is an exceptionally good idea, IMO, and I'll support the change. However, are we not in agreement that those articles in say, "Romanian magazine editors" that overlap with "Academic journals editors" should be left in both? If the ultimate result of your system is that Antohi will be in "Romanian magazine and journal editors" and "Academic journal editors", it would be, I picture, very impractical to move him out and then back into the category as renamed. If your system gets through (and I say it should), then you'd be effectively reverting yourself in this (and presumably many other) articles; if it doesn't, you'd be losing the articles' places in a category branch that is still relevant and is not really a misnomer (it's just not "exactly exact"). Dahn (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome. One more note: the issue of category names is best addressed by a mass CfD (I for one have never started one of those, and it looks pretty complicated, but it's probably the most time-efficient). At the end of a CfD, you won't actually need to create those new categories one by one, a programmed bot will do them all at once (that is, if there's no glitch in the process). This may be familiar to you already, in which case sorry for the redundancy - I just thought that, in case it is not, I'd better get it out of the way. Dahn (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * May I intrude in this discussion? (I noticed it because Dahn's talk page is in my watchlist). I would like to support the merger of Category:Magazines with Category:Journals (Category:Magazines and journals sounds fine, Category:Journals and magazines also sounds fine, but you have to choose one and follow it consistently), and by consequence raising Category:Academic journals to a subcategory of first level. "(...) editors" would follow suit. "(...) by country" would also follow suit. I see (only) one issue that needs more serious thought (the rest seems to me more or less straightforward): Category:Journals by subject area and Category:Magazines by interest; should these be merged, or should they stay as parallel subcats. Dc76\talk 20:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah! Hadn't noticed that issue yet :-) At first sight, these two categories seem to be nicely separated into academic journals ("journals") and other journals and magazines ("magazines"). Perhaps the magazines cat could be renamed to "magazines and journals by interest" with the "journals" then being renamed to "Academic journals by subject area" as a subcat of the former? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * @ Guillaume2303: That would make sense. But after the renaming, you would have to check manually that all thouse journals are indeed academic, and remove those that are not. I cann't say I envy you. :) You might wish to find some ISI or other classification to speed things up (so that you don't have to click on each journal's entry). Dc76\talk 20:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify what appears to be the confusion here: it seems that whoever designed the "Journals" categories had "Academic journals" in mind, meaning that the nomenclature is mixed, but the taxonomy is not. Dahn (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. "Journals" is indeed a subcat of "Magazines". It's an old category, it was created back in 2004... This looks like it's going to be a huge job... I'll concentrate on the editors first, as they seem to be less numerous than the journals/magazines... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also makes sense. Dc76\talk 20:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To elaborate a bit and pinpoint the problem. This is what is says at the top of Category:Journals:
 * "This is a category intended for academic journals. Articles directly in this category should be assessed for whether they really are an academic journal (as opposed to a magazine with 'Journal' in the title) and then subcategorized accordingly, see help at WikiProject Academic Journals or WikiProject Magazines."
 * Now, I'm not commenting on the intelligence of them doing that in the first place (only asking why we must always do things the hardest way). The easiest and most practical solution would be to merge "Journals" into "Academic journals" (which is now either a superfluous subcategory or duplication of the system). But, as you say yourself, that's for someone who has the patience of detailing all of what we've been discussing here in a pan-discussion on this immense issue. (Dahn (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2009
 * Yikes! Hadn't realized yet that both "journals" and "academic journals" exist as a category. They definitely should be merged. How does one go about that? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merging categories is easy. Just use Category redirect, wait for one week, and magic happens. — Miym (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Thank you, Dahn. I looked 5 times at that category and did not notice that it had this explanation on top.
 * Personally, I would favour the name "Academic journals" over "Journals", but I'd rather ask at least a dozen people to make sure. Let's suppose it is decided to keep the title "Academic journals". Then all articles in and subcats of "Journals" have to be manually placed in "Academic journals" (this would take some 2 hours of repeated edits; 12 cats, 181 articles. I can volunteer to help with say letter J). Second step: edit and place Category:Academic journals into proper mother categories. Third: empty Category:Journals and start a CfD (category for deletion).
 * However in the second step I see another problem: "Category:Journals" is a subcat in Journal publishing | Periodicals | Publications by format | Sources | Non-fiction literature | Magazines, while category "Academic journals" is a subcat in Academic publishing | Journals. Can someone explain me the difference between "Journal publishing" and "Academic publishing"? I am puzzled by the category "Publication by format". So, let's start with the basics: Journal (disambiguation). In Scientific journal the first line reads "For a broader class of publications, which include scientific journals, see Academic journal." Can we say that all journals are academic? Dc76\talk 21:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Miym! I did not know there is a bot in place. Step one seems easy to do, once we decide which title is more appropriate. Dc76\talk 21:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this piece of information seems to be near-impossible to find anywhere; the relevant talk pages seem to be littered with all kinds of misleading information. Anyway, the bot is User:RussBot, it is active, and you can check how it processes Category redirect in User:RussBot/category redirect log. The "cooldown period" in the log simply refers to the fact that you'll have to wait for one week after adding the redirection template. — Miym (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will answer my own question: Can someone explain me the difference between "Journal publishing" and "Academic publishing"? Academic publishing includes also books, and other formats. So "Academic journals" is a subset of "(Academic) Journal publishing" which is a subset of "Academic publishing". This one is fine. Dc76\talk 21:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I can guess how this situation happened. Someone created Category:Journals. Anticipating a problem, s/he also put a note on top: "journals means academic journals". The note wasn't visible at least to another person, who created Category:Academic journals and to all persons who assigned pages into the letter, or created subcats for it. Until Dahn noticed. (Possibly others also noticed, but did not care to correct.) I believe this is an argument in support of the title "Academic journal" (as opposed to "Journals"). IMHO, it should be placed in: Journal publishing | Magazines | Publications by format | Periodicals | Non-fiction literature | Sources. A small glitch: Magazines is a subset of Publications by format. Should Academic Journals not be placed in Magazines? We can use a "See also" note instead. Dc76\talk 22:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (unindent) I agree that "Academic journal" is the best title. Not all journals are academic, after all (see Wall Street Journal, for example)... Would an acceptable first step be to put the "redirect" template on the "journals" category to have it redirected to "academic journals"? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support that. (N.B. "Wall Street Journal" to me is a newspaper. I am almost sure I can find a jurisdiction where I can register a pamphlet "The Best Academic Journal in the World". That does not guarantee a place for it in this category. :-) )Dc76\talk 00:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, of course the WSJ is a newspaper, but given the existence of periodicals with "journal" in their name that are not academic journals, it's probably best to stay as unambiguous as possible. BTW, to add to the confusion, there is also a Category:Scientific journals... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's in order not to confuse them with social sciences and humanities. Unfortunately, among subcategories of "Scientific journals" I see "African studies journals", "Ancient Near East journals", "Knowledge management journals", "Psychology journals". A lot of exact sciences... On the positive side, I see that the bot has already performed a few moves. I guess, this is the right moment to let it work overnight. Best regards, Dc76\talk 00:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right. Even though I'm a "hard" scientist myself, i have always found this kind of distinctions a bit artificial. But I guess its better not to upset things too much and it won't be too much work to re-classify the subcats where necessary. That will have to wait for tomorrow, though, it's almost 2 pm here... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As a librarian, I can say that librarians have never gotten the terms straight, and have adopted a wide range of not very useful definitions. The over-all general terms has long been "periodicals", meaning everything not published in a single part ant  a single time, but this too has gotten more complicated in the last few years. I don;t think we should go with what my profession does here--it has its own technical reasons, based primarily on how to handle the material for cataloging purposes.
 * I think however there is a well understood distinction among readers and authors. anything non-technical is a magazine. anything peer-reviewed is a journal. anything in between varies. A publication designed for members of a business or special interest rather than an academic profession, would be called either a trade journal or a trade magazine. One particular class, a publication about news of interest to professionals but not  including actual research reports, is generally now called a professional magazine. I think we should follow these popular usages.
 * What a particular publication calls itself is irrelevant, and usually historical or based on advertising or euphony. That the WSJ calls itself a journal does not mean that it intends to be anything more than a newspaper. (Incidentally, the Russians do (or did in the Soviet period) have a clear distinction--between thick, and thin. A thick publication is one with a spine, and that would usually sit standing up on  a shelf. A thin periodical is stapled in the center, that would have to go into a box.  A peer-reviewed journal is thick; a professional magazine is thin.)
 * We could avoid confusion by using the phrases "academic journal" for a typical peer-reviewed academic publication, such as Nature or PNAS, and "Professional magazine" for ones that are not primarily peer-reviewed, such as Physics Today or C & E News. (I just mention that some of those, like the two I mentioned, are considered of equal reliability on the basis of authoritative editorial control) I would call the other types, such as consumer magazines,  by the general term: periodicals, but it could be broken down further.  There are some interesting examples of a third class, a professional newspaper, such as Womens Wear Daily, or Variety. To me, they seem essentially like professional magazines.    DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I think that "professional newspapers" are sufficiently rare enough to class them under "professional magazines". So if I get this straight, we would get the following classification:
 * -General category: Periodicals
 * -Subcategory: Academic journals (includes "scientific journals"; all are in principle peer-reviewed)
 * -Subcategory: Professional magazines
 * All "consumer magazines", news-magazines, daily newspapers, etc. could initially be grouped under the main "periodicals" category" (or there categories moved there if they aren't already in there), but the WikiProject Magazines (who have been notified of this discussion) may decide to further subdivide those. (I don't want to venture into that, this is already a big enough of a project as it is...) Any comments on this proposal? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you notice that Category:Trade magazines already exists? Might be easier to use this name instead of creating Category:Professional magazines? (And then we should perhaps merge Category:Trade journals → Category:Trade magazines?) — Miym (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, didn't see that. That proposal makes sense. We could call it "Trade magazines and journals". The new structure would be something like this:
 * -Periodicals
 * -other subcategories currently in Periodicals
 * -Magazines and journals
 * -Academic journals
 * -Trade magazines and journals
 * -other categories as needed by the Magazines WikiProject
 * Is this better? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts: — Miym (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) No matter what names we use, we should make the purpose of each category explicit, by adding a short description (which should emphasise that all entries are academic journals).
 * 2) The distinction between "scientific journals" and other "academic journals" is confusing and seems a bit arbitrary to me. I think it might be a good idea to merge Category:Scientific journals by publisher → Category:Academic journals by publisher, and Category:Elsevier scientific journals → Category:Elsevier journals, etc.
 * Good points! I don't disagree with you concerning the "academic"/"scientific" distinction and support merging of these. I am, however, already feeling quite overwhelmed with the magazine/journal thing... Feel free to go ahead and jump in, though! :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I find DGG's comment very helpful. As well as the other ones. Let me make a few observations/opinions in general:
 * "Professional magazines" is a term that can contain Physics Today, or Soviet magazines such as Kvant. I am not sure if I were to search for this, I would think of "Trade magazines". I am not sure however if "Trade maganizes" are beeter being renamed "Professional magazines", or should they be made a subset? How about Naitonal Geographic? Is it a professional magazine? I hope yes, because otherwise it becomes too complicated.
 * I would delete the category "Trade journals". Those are trade magazines. (If there are any academic journals there, add them manually to Academic journals, and end of story) But note that the larger category ("Trade magazines") might need to be renamed ("Professional magazines").
 * Periodicals is indeed the basic mother category. I suggest that such subcategories as "editors by nationality" should come from "Periodicals", not from its subcats. Certainly, there is a difference between journal editors and other type of editors, but I'd suggest not detailing this difference on the level of each nation before it is actually needed. For example "American editors" can have subcategories "American academic journal editors" and "American magazine editors". But I would suggest not doing this for all nations a priori. Let it be done for American, and let the future editors decide this for all other nations (I am sure they would look up "American" and copy the logical scheme from there, if needed). But let's not do it for Kiribati a priori.
 * I also support merging Category:Scientific journals by publisher → Category:Academic journals by publisher, and Category:Elsevier scientific journals → Category:Elsevier journals, etc. However, the subcategory "Scientific journals" of "Academic journals" is ok. The difference is "Academic journals" is large and encompassing enough to warrant subcategories "by publisher", etc. But Scientific journals - is not large enough. Similarly "Humanities journals", and "Social sciences journals" are very useful, but "Humanities journals by publisher" or "Social sciences journals editors" would be an unnecessary mess. When I think of Elsevier, I don't think of it as a publisher of only scientific journals, but when I think of Physics Letters B, I think specifically about scientific journals. If Elsevier decides tomorrow to publish children magazines in Zulu, that fact should not demand putting Elsevier into some new categories. But if Physics Letters B decides tomorrow to publish Psychology, that would be big news. Dc76\talk 16:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How about merging Trade magazines and Professional magazines into "Trade and professional magazines"? I think keeping the two separate would be too fine-grained and choosing only one or the other might confuse some people.
 * I agree about the merging of "Trade journals" into "Trade and professional magazines".
 * I am not sure about the "scientific" <-> academic journal distinction. If you go through these categories, it looks like people use them interchangeably. You'll find medical journals under academic, theology under scientific, etc. Merging them under the generic term "Academic journals" (with subcategories according to field -medical -theological -etc) makes most sense to me. The same goes for "Humanities journals" and "Social sciences journals" (I'm not sure I even understand the difference between these two). As for Elsevier, they are a huge publisher of academic (including scientific) journals, so I think a category "Elsevier academic journals" makes sense to me. It could be a subcat of "Elsevier magazines and journals", because they also publish non academic magazines (like the autonymous Elsevier). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) and 2) Excellent ideas. How about "Professional and trade magazines", let's say for alphabetic reasons :-) Anyway, the exact title/order doesn't matter to me.
 * 3) a) Given that 50% of academic publications are in the field of biology and medicine, a separate category (or categories) is logical. I don't mind if you do a re-categorization of "Academic journals" by subject. I would focus on this after, because now I am already overwhelmed with this whole issue. You have a blank check from me. b) "Elsevier academic journals" Yes, I agree. This will also correlate well with "Academic journals by publisher" c) The difference between Humanities and Social Sciences, as far as I understand, can be exemplified as follows: History, Linguistics, Classics, Philosophy are Humanities (they deal with ideas people had); Economics, Sociology, Psychology, Law are Social Sciences (they deal with social interaction between people). Don't ask me to separate them exactly, I don't know how to. :) Dc76\talk 18:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think (almost) everything in Category:Academic journals and Category:Scientific journals should be put in more specific subcategories (such as Category:Biology journals and Category:Computer science journals). Once this has been done, it might turn out that there is very little need to have Category:Scientific journals... Perhaps we can discuss it again then? — Miym (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I propose that we first merge "journals" into "academic journals" (already initiated) and then categorize the individual journals in that overall category into specialized categories, perhaps even more fine-grained than "biology journals": neuroscience, botany, linguistics, etc. We can then see if "scientific journals" or "humanities journals" and "Social science journals" are still needed as separate categories. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with what seems to be the emerging consensus here. One point I would make is to search the category namespace for the terms DGG and others use. There are probably more categories out there where the naming has not been clear. I probably contributed to a bit of that early on. Glad it is getting sorted out now. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding (trade) magazines. Where should we have, e.g., Category:Science and technology magazines or Category:Computer magazines? Now they are in Category:Magazines by interest, which is fine. But should they be also categorised somewhere in Category:Professional and trade magazines? Do we need Category:Professional and trade magazines by interest? — Miym (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The structure Category:Academic publishing / Category:Academic journal publishing / Category:Academic journals sounds a bit like WP:OVERCAT to me. Could we perhaps remove the intermediate step "Category:Academic journal publishing" and merge its contents to Category:Academic publishing and Category:Magazine publishing? — Miym (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with this. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Macropus titan
Guillaume2303, Macropus titan is not a hoax. I did a Google search and this is a real prehistoric creature. The article did need to be wikified though. I also added an external link so casual visitors could see it was for real. Plus, I removed the author's name from the bottom of the page. Wiwaxia (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Journal/magazine plan
I think it'd be a good idea to try to summarise the current plan regarding journal (and magazine) categories. Here is a first attempt (showing the intended structure of the relevant parts of the category tree). Feel free to edit. — Miym (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I'll put some remarks in there. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Once this is stabilised, we should also update WikiProject Academic Journals/Resources. — Miym (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

 * Category:Periodicals
 * Category:Academic journals (merge: 1)
 * Category:Scientific journals (discuss later)
 * Category:Academic journals by subject area (merge: 1)
 * Category:Biology journals
 * Category:Academic journals by publisher (merge: 1, 2)
 * Category:Elsevier academic journals (merge: 1, 2)
 * Category:Magazines
 * Category:Professional and trade magazines (also for trade journals; merge: 1, 2)
 * Category:Magazines
 * Category:Professional and trade magazines (also for trade journals; merge: 1, 2)
 * Category:Professional and trade magazines (also for trade journals; merge: 1, 2)


 * Category:Academic publishing
 * Category:Academic journal publishing (do we need this? No, I agree, see above)
 * Category:Academic journals (see above)
 * Category:Scientific literature (should this be Category:Academic literature? Yes, I think so, to remain in sync with the rest of the adopted nomenclature)


 * I think this has all been done now. Please check and let me know if something still has to be done. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We will also need Professional and trade magazines by subject area, and by publisher.
 * Suggest we use academic journals, not scientific journals--otherwise we'll just end up with many in the wrong category.   DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(UTC)
 * I agree. I'll proceed with merging "scientific journals" into "academic journals" and related merges. I will also create the Professional and trade categories that are needed. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2009
 * Actually, it seems best to rename "scientific journals" to "scientific journals by subject area" and have that as a category under "Academic journals" and similarly for "social science journals by subject area" and "humanities journals by subject area". That would do away with the recently created "Academic journals by subject area", but that is no real problem, I think. The categories in "journals by subject area" can be re-allocated by hand, it's not that many. Any comments? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your PROD of Diabetic Hypoglycemia (journal)
Though I haven't time for a full study, an early look suggests to me that this article should be kept. The journal seems closely associated with a drugmaker, which surprisingly, makes me *more* eager rather than less to keep it. (The whiff of COI and the possibility of impermissible influence on submissions is of interest). If you agree with the de-prod, then I'll remove the tag. If you still think the article should be deleted, then I'll probably let it go because the new AJ guideline seems to be against keeping it and I haven't the time for a full study. The fact that there is no submission procedure for authors is puzzling. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Advice on Association of Internet Researchers
Hoping you can help guide me in the right direction on your notability flag for AoIR. I looked through the learned societies list, and very few of the existing articles have references to mainstream news coverage. Can you point me to an example of an article you feel meets the notability requirements. Perhaps you can point to a scholarly association in your own field that has adequately demonstrated its notability? Thanks! Halavais (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid a lot of those articles listed would need some cleanup... An example fo an article with (what seems to be) adequate coverage is American Association for the Advancement of Science. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean in terms of depth? That's certainly a longer article, but unless I'm missing something, it doesn't have a lot in terms of the requirements listed in WP:ORG. Clearly, AoIR is international in scope (the first requirement). It's also noted in the mainstream press--I've added some clipping to the talk page. And a quick Google Scholar search will show that it has been mentioned in any number of peer-reviewed academic journals. This seems to satisfy the second requirement. So, while I agree it is a stub (also true of most other scholarly society articles on WP), I'm wondering why you are flagging this page for notability, rather than, say, the American Academy of Neurology, or the European Federation of Neurological Societies to name two examples in your own field that are both "stubbier" and lack outside verification. I'm not arguing that either of these are not notable, naturally, I'm just wondering why you see the AoIR article as uniquely worthy of that flag, when pages for other academic organizations are not? Thanks again. Halavais (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually don't remember how I came to that particular page. In any case, there has not been a decision from my part to tag AoIR but not the other organizations that you mention. I guess I just never got there... I did not point you to the AAAS because of the depth, it's perfectly fine to create a stub initially, but because of the references. Just being mentioned in peer-reviewed journals does not satisfy WP:ORG. Neither is being international sufficient, not every international society is notable (in the WP sense), that's why WP:ORG says that both criteria need to be satisfied. Having said all this, I really don't hang to much to those tags, so I'll take your word for it that this organization is notable and you can remove them if you want. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I will, but will also try to make sure that it's better referenced, as well. And with my thanks for taking the time both there and here for your assistance. Halavais (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SNOW
The essence of this wonderfully-time saving policy is that if running a process to the final formal conclusion would just waste time for no real purpose, you can ignore the letter of the law and apply common sense. It is very useful! Tim Vickers (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * PS, if you really do want me to re-open the discussion I will of course honor your request, but I honestly don't think the article has any chance of being deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Adamantius (journal)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Adamantius (journal). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Tufts Historical Review
To begin with, you gave no indication before you deleted the article and, as you well understand, much time and energy are employed to complete such articles. The Tufts Historical Review is a young publication. Nonetheless, the members of the advisory board, in themselves, provide notoriety within the scope of Wikipedia's definition, as the Tufts Historical Review is setting a historical precedent with such well-known individuals on the board. If you can wait several days, I'll see what I can do to provide some THR references from third-parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldbandDXer (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Bibliographic Database
Infobox Bibliographic Database

I figured I'd give it a go, even though I've never created an infobox. Will you give it a look over and let me know what you think needs to be edited? Just leave any comments on the infobox's talk page. Thanks! -- Clifflandis (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks re Science and Christian Belief
Hi Guillaume2303. May I publicly thank you for your outstanding Wikiprofessionalism re Science and Christian Belief. The article I created was not much more than a stub and I quite understand why you nominated it for AfD. Thanks to other editors collaborating it survived the AfD and you have been meticulously improving it. Sadly there are plenty of other Editors who turn AfDs into something of a vendetta. I hope we collaborate on other matters in the future. (If I did "barnstars" I'd certainly "award" one :-). NBeale (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're welcome! I may not have agreed with the keep decision, but given the article is being kept, I'd like to have it as good as possible. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Phenome
- this is a specific term that is being widely used in the literature. It is NOT the same as Phenotype. Try a Google search or a PubMed search http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed on the term.

Note: Genotype is not the same as Genome. Likewise, Phenotype is not the same as Phenotype.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfjoseph (talk • contribs) 04:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi - sorry i did not sign I am not an expert at this

I meant to say "Likewise, Phenotype is not the same as Phenome".

So, I dont understand why the entire Phenome entry should be deleted and simply redirected to "Phenotype"?

Pfjoseph (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Reason To Kill
Hi Guillaume2303, i have quickly made some edits to Reason To Kill. The article still needs sources, but i think that i may have dealt with the copyvio and replicated content concerns that the templates had listed. I have removed the templates, can you take a look at it to ensure that you are happy that the changes have addressed your concern. Feel free to rollback or re-add speedy delete if you are not satisfied. Cheers, Darigan (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Marie Nyswander
Please look at this article again. I don't dispute that it was a poor article, but the woman is notable and verifiable. It's not my field, but I was able easily to find one ref out of many that show that she satisfies inclusion criteria.

I've done some small work i enhancing the article, but the field does not interest me. Even so I see it as worthy of inclusion in its current (not yet good) state. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Adamantius
It was extremely remiss of me not to check out who I was dealing with when restoring the stub on Adamantius. However, one good side of it is that at least I wasn't swayed by your obvious professional expertise.

It is a curious thing to me that, now I have checked the Excellence for Research in Australia database for science journals, I cannot find Genes, Brain and Behavior on their listing. It has to be crazy for a top quality journal like yours to be overlooked in that listing. Unsurprisingly, the listing is far from complete.

May I ask, how did you come across the Adamantius stub in the first place? Thanks for leaving notes regarding your speedy and deletion requests on my page, I'd have asked that and other questions at the time, except I've simply not been at Wiki much for some months.

The group that publish the journal are well-known and have produced procedings, which, along with reviews are indexed in ATLA, which is the standard tool in my own area. Origen, big fish that he is in my small pond, is studied by many people, but not so many that the Italian group are insignificant. In theology, it is probably easy to make a splash. There is not the huge competition (nor the funding naturally) that hard science has.

Anyway, I've not given up on wanting the group documented here at Wiki. Would you be willing to interact with me a bit about your view of the notability of the Group, rather than the journal? Alastair Haines (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Gender at my talk page
If you would like to weigh in on this topic at my talk page, as it is currently going on there, you are more than welcomed to. Flyer22 (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

BIJI
It doesn't seem to be in PubMed. Could you look again at whether this journal is really notable? Fences &amp;  Windows  01:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I presume this discussion relates to my journal's Wikipedia entry (Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal), which in that case the title should read BIIJ. I leave it as is for now if, perhaps Fences  &amp;  Windows  would like to continue discussing the issue here.


 * In reply to Fences  &amp;  Windows  query above: no, the journal is not yet included in Pubmed or WoS. I made that clear in the paragraph under the Indexing heading:


 * The journal has been accepted for Pubmed Central and is currently preparing to be indexed by Pubmed/MEDLINE and the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters)[4].


 * It did pass the evaluation for Pubmed Central, which is the repository of choice for Pubmed (not to be confused for Pubmed itself). And having passed that means we're now eligible for the evaluation process by Pubmed. We also are in the process of making sure that we have all the criteria ready for our application to WoS sometime next year.


 * In a related issue: we have however, been indexed by Scopus, and this I notice is one of the criterion to pass Criterion 1 in WP:Notability (academic journals). Perhaps I should include an independent proof of this?


 * In reply to Guillaume2303 (talk): thanks for your welcome message and kind comments on my talk page (talk). Hope I'm doing it right by replying to the message here. Let me know if otherwise, so that I can move it my talk page instead.


 * Yes, I do agree with you that the tone of my journal's entry is rather promotional, instead of neutral. I will attempt to 'clean' the article in the same vein as you did with Genes, Brain and Behavior and I hope you don't mind me copying your style of presenting the data.


 * But back to a more important point that you raised: to include an independent reference to our inclusion in Pubmed or WoS. As I mentioned above, we have not been indexed by both. I've only said that we're trying to get into both sometime next year. But we are in Scopus, and we have passed the evaluation by Pubmed Central. This acceptance by Pubmed Central is one of the requirements by Pubmed for all its applicants (Journal Selection for MEDLINE® Indexing at NLM).


 * And since being included in Scopus is a requirement to pass Criterion 1 in WP:Notability (academic journals), should an independent reference to it be enough to keep the entry? And what sort of document would qualify as an 'independent reference'?


 * Thanks again for your time to comment on my entry. Really appreciate it. Nahrizuladib (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)nahrizuladib


 * PS: I can't find a way of knowing (or some sort of alert) if you have replied to my queries here in your talk page. If there is not such a way, perhaps you'd be kind enough to reply them in my talk page instead? Thanks in advance Nahrizuladib (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)nahrizuladib


 * Thanks again for your reply. I personally have only realised that WP:Notability (academic journals) is still a proposal, rather than an accepted guideline in Wikipedia. In that case, I suppose the entry will only be subjected to GNG (for the time being) and I will heed your advice of neutralising the tone of the article and also putting back the references from the Star publication. You must've noticed that the tone of my comments is a bit defensive; perhaps I'm just upset that some uncited and/or unindexed journals like The New Iraqi Journal of Medicine has its own Wikipedia entry, while (in my mind) a bona fide journal like BIIJ is subjected to such an amount of scrutiny. Well, thanks again for your concern regarding my journal's Wikipedia entry. Will let you know if I need any advice. Nahrizuladib (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: I've just noticed a link to AfD Statistics. Is it ethical for me to vote for the article to be kept? If it is, how do I go about voting for it? Thanks Nahrizuladib (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just looked at BIIJ's article history and only realised that your version is very succinct and (in my eye) vey neutral. The previous versions have been uploaded by a freelancer, and he did not tell me about your version when he replaced it again afterwards. Question: How do I revert back the entry to your version? Thanks Nahrizuladib (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The article (Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal) is now back to your earlier version. I also did some factual edits. Nahrizuladib (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity: how long exactly can an article be in an AfD debate? And how/when will a consensus be reached? Nahrizuladib (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

FidoNews
I ask that if you wish to delete the FidoNews you do so at Articles for deletion rather than simply blanking the page and making it into a redirect. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to bring it to AfD, making a redirect is much more logical. There is absolutely no evidence that FidoNews has any notability (and, in fact, the article on FidoNet is unsourced, too, so even the Net may be non-notable, but I don't care much about that). If you want to keep this as a stub, you should provide some evidence for notability. If you cannot do so, you should leave it as a redirect. At this point, the only information contained in the stub is "published by FidoNet". Redirection is not deletion, therefore, as that info can easily be incorporated into the FidoNet article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't see any reason to bring it to AfD, then please don't blank the page. If, on the other hand, you contest the notability or sourcing issues, you can either put the appropriate cleanup tag on the page,  nominate it for deletion, or nominate it for merging, at which point other editors may be able to provide the requisite improvements to the article.  You can't use redirection, though, to avoid the deletion/editing process.  Please see AfD and mergers for further information.  Do not blank the page again.  —Psychonaut (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then AfD it is. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Antonio Costa Pinto
I note you reinserted the orphan tag after you deleted an article that linked to this page, and tell me that I cannot include the name in the journal article. Perhaps you can tell me what I am allowed to do, as you seem to like changing everything without discussion. Lusobrandane (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tesseract2
Please advise what you think makes the material I was posting in "heritability" inappropriate, so that I can improve the information. I do think some sort of primer or introduction to the BASIC ideas of heritability is helpful: I have made the most recent update one without any unprofessional metaphors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesseract2 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess the best I can see is that your writing for the moment is unencyclopedic. In additin, except for one reference to a book review (?) you didn't provide sources for your statements. See WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. A better way to do this would be to create a sandbox in your userspace and write your text there and work on it, and only after it is ripe move it into article space. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health
On account of a typographic error, I got the original name of the journal slightly wrong. I wanted to use the correct name. That is why I moved the page. The actual name of the journal is the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health. There is no comma after the word "environment". This is the style followed by many medical journals.

I don't see any reason for deleting the page because I wanted to correct a typographic error. I regret not being able to move the Discussion page, and have no objection to copying the original Discussion page, and pasting into the new Discussion page for Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health. I just don't know how to make the transfer other than by copying and pasting.

If you would like to copy and paste the old Discussion into the new Discussion, please go ahead.

I don't see the need to Delete the page. I feel as if I've been ganged up on by you and Abductive with this rush to delete the page. There is plenty of bad stuff on Wikipedia. I don't see the need to delete the page devoted to a respected scientific journal.Iss246 (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You are more expert than I about moving pages. I just used whatever instrument was available to me, i.e., copying and pasting. I defer to you to straighten out the move to the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health page. I clearly don't want to see the entry deleted.

Perhaps you can send me a little note on the preferred way to move an entry when a problem is detected such as a name being misspelled.Iss246 (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your answer, including the help with moving an entry.

I also think it would be a good idea for Wikipedia to reference quality scientific journals regardless of the popularity of those journals with users. Doing so would reflect well on the quality of Wikipedia itself. The occasional user, a college student off in a library, may occasionally learn something important. I know there is a place for Britney Spears in Wikipedia. But there is also a place for the vehicles that communicate the results of scientific research.Iss246 (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD
First, be careful! You deleted my comment. Second, I'm concerned by this practice of declaring publishers and journals notable when there is no significant coverage of them. Nobody's heard of E-century Publishing and no reliable sources have written about them, but we're going to keep an article on them? Fences &amp;  Windows  17:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Source for physical sciences journals
I found a secondary source that talks about journals in the physical sciences in an appropriately analytical way. It's called Making Sense of Journals in the Physical Sciences: From Specialty Origins to Contemporary Assortment by Tony Stankus. Here's an (essentially) random page. The only problem is that it is from 1991. Abductive (reasoning) 04:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At least up until 1991, that looks like a great source. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Your abusive edits
Seems you are watching for every change to Open_access_(publishing) and reverting my edits. And for clearly farcical reasons, like:
 * You're claiming there's OR there ... blocking to assertions like "OA reduces subscription revenue". You're essentially claiming that not paying established publishers money preserves their revenue stream!  Euh, non.  If there's a nuance you want to capture (some not-as-open OA flavors don't reduce it as much?), do that instead of deleting such obvious truisms.
 * Removing a request for citation about unsourced, and in fact unprovable, facts. It's inappropriate to just remove cite requests as you did ... that is, without providing the requested cite.
 * When I removed anti-OA POV, or balance it with counter-arguments, you claim that I'm the one inserting POV. Seems to me that you are instead promoting anti-OA POV by your edit warring.  If you were actually trying to remove POV you would come up with better fixes, instead of exclusively restoring anti-OA implications and assertions as you have been doing.

By just reverting instead of actually improving anything, and moreover by wholesale reversion without even attempting to discuss the issues, you're violating WP policies. (And annoying at least one other editor.) I started a section on the article's Talk page. Perhaps you might deign to participate?

I will also note that you clearly have a personal stake in limiting OA, given your editorial roles. Your conflict of interest should accordingly constrain your bias-enhancing edits in such areas.

--69.226.238.251 (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have checked Open access (publishing), and Guillaume2303 has not violated WP:3RR, so I have removed the uw-3rr tag you left on this talk page. Please read WP:3RR before using this tag again.  I'll take a look at the content dispute now. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (response to IP) As you are editing anonymously, I'll answer here instead of on your talk page. To start with my presumed COI, for your information, I am also Academic Editor of PLoS ONE and editorial board member for several BioMed Central journals. So I have experience with both sides of the medal. As for whether or not you might have a COI, there's no way of knowing given that you do not edit under your own name, now is there? Anyway, you are certainly correct that the current article on OA is not good and contains some unsourced POV. However, I don't think that the solution to that is to insert more unsourced POV. I don't have the time to clean up that article, but I will not let it get even worse than it is. If you have sourced material, it can be included. If, when reversing your edits, I inadvertently also removed a "citation needed" template, I apologize and feel free to re-insert it. As for the 3RR warning above, I have deleted it, because 1 revert in 24 hours does not come even close to a 3RR violation (edit conflict, John Vandenberg was faster, thanks! :-). A final remark on the financial aspects of OA: Most OA publishers (and certainly the larger ones) are commercial companies (BMC was bought by Springer, for example). All need at least to cover their expenses. Being involved with OA publishing I know that this also costs a lot of money to do well and this has to come from somewhere. Things are not as black and white as you seem to think. I will copy this comment on the talk page of the OA article to make sure that you see it. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll also answer here. I have restored the citation needed and added another.  This article isn't sourced very well.
 * this contra-OA motivation is being added to a paragraph about mandating open access to publicly funded research, and the ongoing lobbying. You need to provide a reliable source that says that this contra-OA motivation is part of lobbying going on at the moment.  it needs to be a clear assertion that lobby groups are using it.
 * If that contra-OA motivation isn't being used in lobbying, but is being used in public discourse, it may be appropriate to mention this contra-OA motivation elsewhere in the article. Tell us a source, and we will be able to look at how it best fits into the article.
 * The manifesto from D.J. Bernstein is a primary source, and definitely not a published academic source. It is not suitable in this article excepting if the text clearly says "D.J. Bernstein thinks [blah]".
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 11:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 69.226.238.251, if these guys have a problem with your edits, then you must be doing something wrong. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Phenome
Hello - sorry for my ineptitude, but it seems that my reversion of the redirect on Phenome to Phenotype reverted again. I think I have done it correctly this time. To reiterate, Phenome is not the same as Phenotype. Phenome is to Phenotype what Genome is to Genotype. --Pfjoseph (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I've corrected that. See also the talk page of the article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand - the redirect of Phenome to Phenotype is back again? I think the Phenome deserves to have the separate original page that existed. It is distinct from Phenotype? --Pfjoseph (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Phenome is much more of a neologism than Genome or even Transcriptome. Given how short the Phenotype article is, wouldn't it be better to add phenome information there? Abductive  (reasoning) 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. When people talk about Phenome or Phenomics, all they mean is that they are looking at more than 1 phenotype, without any synthetic thoughts behind that. By comparison, Genome or Transcriptome really are something different than Gene or Transcript. Phenome or Phenomics don't deserve a separate article at this point. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Journal
What I meant by the edit summary was someone who regularly edits that article should make the decision if it belongs. It looks like you were taking it out as I was moving it from one location to the other, I am suprised it didn't come up with an edit conflict when I hit save. Sorry for the confusion.  GB fan  talk 14:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, our edits indeed have the same time stamp! :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Plantsman (journal)
Hello Guillaume2303. You have recently made edits to The Plantsman (journal) which removed its status as a botanical journal and gave your opinion that it is "not an academic journal but a magazine". On what basis have you made this assessment?

The Plantsman is a learned and scientific journal, not a magazine, published by the Royal Horticultural Society. It may be more magazine-like in appearance than many other scientific journals, but it is nonetheless a journal, as indeed is The Garden (a much more magazine-like publication, which is nevertheless still subtitled "The Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society"). Both are produced by editorial teams who are far more scrupulous in their fact-checking than any normal gardening magazine would be, and can draw upon the expertise and the resources of the science departments at RHS Garden Wisley, and the library and archives at Vincent Square, as well as the results of trials and the other work of their expert horticulturists at their gardens at Harlow Carr in Yorkshire, Hyde Hall in Essex, and Rosemoor in Devon.

I have reverted your changes. SiGarb | (Talk) 16:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded at your talk page. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the magazine you will find that it has a wide scope, and that although not all of its articles are rigidly academic in style or approach, it nevertheless reports in an authoritative manner, with a full range of references at the foot of almost every article. It publishes descriptions of new species, and those descriptions are respected and quoted in other academic journals. Its statements are thoroughly fact-checked by the relevant scientists in the Society's laboratories at RHS Garden Wisley. It is not a magazine. It is not available on newsstands. The RHS uses it (and/or its other publications The Garden, The Orchid Review and Hanburyana where appropriate) to report the results of its trials and other ongoing projects and investigations. The RHS considers it to be a journal. If you subscribed and thought you were going to get a gardening magazine, you'd be very surprised (and probably disappointed!). SiGarb | (Talk) 17:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, Guillaume2303, I'm sorry about my earlier misunderstanding about your nationality when I reverted your edits to The Garden. I didn't read through all your background pages at the time. Your misgivings about The Garden are understandable, it is far more magazine-like than any scientific journal. Yet "The Garden" is the direct descendant of the original Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society first published in 1866, which was itself the updated version of the Transactions of the Horticultural Society. It may have become ever more populist in its approach, but it still began as a learned society's journal, and should strictly speaking still be referred to as its journal. SiGarb | (Talk) 17:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do they invite experts to write articles? (I hope Guillaume2303 doesn't mind my butting in here, as he seems to follow my contribs.)  Abductive  (reasoning) 17:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do, and experts volunteer themselves. Though perhaps Guillaume2303's definition of "expert" also differs from that of the RHS. SiGarb | (Talk) 17:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Abductive, feel free to chime in anytime :-). Response to SiGarb: The Wall Street Journal is a very authoritative newspaper. They often invite experts to write an article. If I submit some piece there, it would most probably be rejected. They are still not an academic journal and neither are The Garden or The Plantsman. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Plantsman has a lot of features in its articles that you would be unlikely to find in the Wall St Journal (and not just because of its botanical subject-matter). The latest issue (December 2009), for example, has an article by Dr Tijana Blanusa (RHS Plant Physiologist at the University of Reading) & Dr Ross Cameron (Senior Lecturer in Landscape Horticulture, also of Reading Uni) on experiments to assess the water needs of bedding plants, under the headings: The research, Results, Conclusions, with a table showing shoot and flower production efficiency, a graph, References etc. There is a full description, by Julian Shaw, Senior Registrar in the RHS Botany Dept, of a new species of Peliosanthes from Thailand, Peliosanthes caesia J.M.H. Shaw, sp. nov. (with half a column of references): I believe this is the first official publication (and thus the definitive description) of this species. In addition, Kew-trained horticulturist John Fielding describes Begonia taliensis, a Chinese species new to cultivation. Béatrice Henricot (Principal Scientist, Plant Pathology Dept, RHS Garden Wisley) surveys the most recent plant diseases to be introduced to the UK (with a full page table, and a full page of references). Dr Paul Alexander, Soil Scientist at RHS Garden Wisley, describes in minute detail an experiment assessing peat-free and peat-reduced growing media, under headings such as: Experimental set-up, Experimental measurements, Results: effects on the plants, Discussion and Conclusion (with half a page of References). A short article on the bulbous species Pamianthe peruviana by Alberto Grossi, a noted Italian bulb grower and expert on growing members of the Amaryllidaceae, is divided up under the headings: The genus, The species, Growing cycle, Cultivation, Propagation, Conclusion. There are several other articles, less academic in style, but equally well-researched and authoritative. This is just a selection from the latest issue. I can cite other articles, with more examples of graphs and tables, if required. The wide scope of the journal means that not everything published therein is amenable to a purely scientific approach, but there is certainly a sufficiently meaty filling to satisfy most discriminating professionals and knowledgeable amateurs in the field. But it is not the subject -matter, or the editorial approach, of an average "magazine". Perhaps we need to insert a caveat along the lines of that in the New Scientist article: "It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but it is read by both scientists and non-scientists, as a way of keeping track of developments outside their own fields of study or areas of interest."? SiGarb | (Talk) 18:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree that the case is perhaps not completely clear-cut. I am perfectly aware of htis kind of botanical publications, that sometimes publish new species descriptions and such. In my previous life as a botanist (see Anubias), I cited an article by N.E. Brown published in the Garden Chronicle. And I published myself a description of a new special (Lagenandra dewitii, see Hendrik de Wit) in a periodical called AquaPlanta. The latter is perhaps a very good example (even though there is no WP article on it yet). They publish high-quality articles, including regularly descriptions of new species. They even have an editorial board. However, submitted manuscripts are not habitually peer-reviewed (although someone on the board may have a look, besides the editor) and I would definitely call this a magazine, not an academic journal. Getting back to your examples, the article by Alexander sounds like a scientific article, the one by Grossi does not. The history of the periodical is clearly notable. 100 or more years ago, the distinction between academic and other journals was less clear than it is nowadays, the peer-review system has not always been used. And publications may change over time, becoming more or less academic. The New Scientist, in my eyes, is not an academic journal either, but a professional magazine. And, as you may note, it is listed only in magazine categories, uses a magazine infobox, and is tagged only for the magazines Wikiproject... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The separation between professional magazine and journal is not exact. The example in my field ia Library Journal, a professional magazine published by Elsevier, that in addition to extensive magazine content, also carries research and review articles of the highest quality, and which no academic in the field would be reluctant  to cite.  In other subjects I know, the classic examples are Physics Today and Chemical and Engineering News, both of which are technically not peer reviewed, but rather expertly edited--I think in both subjects their undergraduate -oriented review articles are considered thoroughly reliable, & they too are widely cited. All 3 are in WoS.  Ulrich's classification of "peer-reviewed journal--and the similar distinctions made by Ebsco and other distributors, include magazines having editorial control equivalent to peer reviewed journals as if they are technically peer reviewed journals. Nature'' itself has been known to accept research articles on the individual decision of the editor-in-chief, without peer-review. I recall one article of mine in biology, which was published in a very high quality journal of the period without peer review, essentially as a courtesy to my advisor,  who was the US editor. (i like to think it would have withstood genuine review, but I'll never know)
 * Where new species can be validly published and other new taxonomies proposed is subject to several different sets of technical rules. I recall once, years ago, an elementary college botany text-- I do not recall which--where the author decided to use his own scheme of classification at the higher levels, and published it formally in Latin as an appendix.
 * What I think we need to go by is by the general nature of the content, as judged either from actual issues or at least from tables of contents. What we cannot go by is the exact technicality of how the review is done,much less the way the title is worded. (I am reluctant to include as genuine peer-review the practice of many lower level journals of relying on the editorial board, or the even worse practice of the level of peer-review being a sham.  . In short, I endorse Guillaume2303's approach. `    DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

eCPC
Dear Guillaume2303, Thank you, once again for your kind help on my recent article contributions...Although feel bit of disappointed to see the e-Century Publishing Corporation has been deleted, I'll respect the decision based on the consensus. To be honest, still I do not think the "consensus" on this deletion is well-informed since some of us may not have time to do the research on what this “company” is doing. As I mentioned in the original discussion of AfD for this article, we cannot judge the notability of e-Century Publishing with the criteria that we are using for a music band, a local Pisa restaurant, etc, and we should not judge it as "un-notable" because of it is too young (2 years old). e-CPC is actually publishing five free real professional medical journals, with four of them indexed in the ultimate database, as you know for the medical science---Pubmed and Pubmed Central, the achievements which may take decades to reach for a new publisher like this. In addition, it is indeed well accepted by the medical communities as you can see from the journals published by this publisher. Since I am new to Wikipedia in terms of article contribution, and surely have lots to learn, do you think that it would be appropriate to recreate this article, or take this case to "deletion review" which may take all of us too much time since most of us are the full time researchers? Your advice will be highly appreciated....Happy New Year!OpenAccessforScience (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point I am afraid that there is not much that can be done. Recreating the article would be inappropriate: unless you would have significant new sources it would be speedily deleted. And on top of that, you might get blocked from editing if you would repeat such a mistake. Deletion review is not applicable either: it is only useful if you contest the outcome of the AfD on procedural grounds, but it looks like the admin who closed the AfD followed consensus. I'm afraid that there is not much that can be done at this point. You might try asking User:DGG who knows more about these things than I do, although I cannot give you much hope that he'll know something. And Happy New Year to you, too! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Elsevier Journals
Dear Guillaume2303,

Many thanks for your comments and tips, I find them very helpful. I am indeed working for Elsevier, where we have recently started a small scale project to include basic information about some of our computer science journals on Wikipedia. We have already been in contact with David Goodman, who has been very helpful in explaining what is acceptable on Wikipedia and what is not. I have been trying the best I can to keep the articles completely neutral, but in case you feel they are not in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality principle, please do let me know. With respect to the 5-year IF: this metric is becoming increasingly important in several fields, including Computer Science. I would therefore prefer to leave it in.

The pages I have edited so far are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence_(journal) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_and_Knowledge_Engineering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Notes_in_Theoretical_Computer_Science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_Sets_and_Systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_Systems_Research_(journal) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_and_Computation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Symbolic_Computation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_Networks_(journal) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurocomputing_(Journal) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_Computer_Science_(journal) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Web_Semantics

I hope you don't mind me asking you for help, but I noticed that you have uploaded an image of the journal cover on the Behavioural Brain Research page. I haven't been able to figure out yet how to upload images, so I would very much appreciate it if you could explain how to do this.

In case you have more specific questions about Elsevier or why we are editing Wikipedia articles, please do not hesitate to contact Inez van Korlaar, who is responsible for this project: i.vankorlaar@elsevier.com

kind regards,

J. van der Boom —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.vanderboom (talk • contribs) 10:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Beste J. van der Boom, don't worry about asking for help, after all, that's what I offered :-) I will check the articles that you listed for neutrality and make some minor edits (even if nothing really needs to be done) so that other editors can see that an uninvolved editor has reviewed the article. WP can be very harsh on people who work for companies, because many editors are rather zealously guarding WP against spamming (sometimes a bit over-zealously). Personally, I have no problem with someone working for a company providing non-controversial info, but it is good to keep checking these articles so drop me a note from time to time and I'll check your new articles. Up till now, I think you have done an excellent job in staying neutral. Have a look at Genes, Brain and Behavior. I have a COI with that one myself, but think I did a reasonable job when I created that article and several other editors have checked it on my request and agreed that it was NPOV. If you click on the image in that article, you will go to the image page. Just change the URL from "G2Bcover" to "XYZcover" and you'll get to a screen where you can upload a new image. If you copy the licensing info on the G2Bcover page, there should be no copyright problems.
 * Some other minor things I noted in your article creations: only disambiguate a title if confusion is possible: Physiology and Behavior but Neurocomputing (journal). Note that the word "journal" between parentheses should be in lowercase. You can add a link in the infobox to the appropriate ScienceDirect page with the name "Online access". Adding history info is nice, too (see the minor changes I made to Neurocomputing). Hope this helps, don't hesitate to contact me if you need anything else! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Guillaume2303, I too have been in touch with them. I have made some additional suggestions on her taljk page for material which will make the article stronger, and am making at least one edit to the article. In particular I have suggested she not do many more of them at a time. I believe they know the basic practical requirement here, which is to  start with journals of unquestionably high quality (or at least high enough quality to be in JCR.)   DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Business & Information Systems Engineering (BISE)
I've turned down your speedy deletion request for this article. It doesn't seem like a clear-cut case of advertising to me. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And I've dragged it over to the project discussion page. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Do you know how I might get a fair-use image for the American Journal of Physical Anthropology? Abductive (reasoning) 11:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know why it ended
Articles for deletion/Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers --Grasshopper6 (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Cakalele (journal)
Hello. You recently prodded Cakalele (journal). Could you explain why an academic journal about Maluku is not notable? Do you know of any other journals on this topic? Please answer here or on the article talk page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why you deprodded it. A far as I can see, being the only journal of its kind (or rather, having been so for a brief period) is not a criteria for notability. No sources, nothing to write... The recently proposed WP:Notability (academic journals) was mainly criticized for being to inclusionist, but Cakalele does not seem to even meet those standards. Why do you think it is notable? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice" is a criteria for notablity, and it is covered by criteria for influence, citation frequency, and historical significance. Cruiso, have you searched the literature for references for "Maluku Research Journal"?  The journal is notable and I will be removing whatever tags you have added. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The founder of the journal is James T. Collins, a notable linguist. Viriditas (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and needs to be supported by verifiable and reliable sources. The single reference yoou have added does not establish notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: could you tell me where the definition "Significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice" comes from? It is not in WP:N... Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a quote encapsulating the criteria found in the Notability (academic journals) essay you cited above; You said it did not meet those standards. The Maluku Research Journal is cited widely in the anthropological literature and was founded by James T. Collins, who is "considered among the foremost authorities in the United States on the Malay language and dictionary creation". Indonesian cultural anthropologist Paschalis Maria Laksono was one its editors, and in 2005, Laksono and the journal were mentioned in an academic news release from Lafayette College. The publisher of the journal, the Center for Southeast Asian Studies University of Hawaii at Manoa, is also notable, as it hosts the "largest concentration of Southeast Asia specialists available in the United States".  So we have a notable, specialist journal published by a notable institution, founded, edited, and written by experts in their field.  It's also cited in many anthropological bibliographies, such as the International Bibliography of Anthropology (2003) by the British Library of Political and Economic Science. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And that quote is followed by "as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources", which clearly is not the case here. But I really don't care too much whether this stub stays or not, so let's close this discussion. I'll take it from my watchlist, although I still think that it needs a tag. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The journal is listed in the chapter "Annotated Bibliography of Recommended Readings on Indonesia" in the section, "Indonesian Geography and History, Books and Periodicals" in Florence Lamoureux's book Indonesia: A Global Studies Handbook (2003) : "This academic journal concentrates on Maluku. Although some of the papers published in Cakalele are scientific, most focus on language, social science, and the arts and humanities..."  Although I haven't confirmed it myself, I believe the journal is discussed in the book The Early Years of a Dutch Colonial Mission: The Karo Field (1990) by Rita Smith Kipp. Lamoureux and Kipp were at one time associated with the University of Hawaii, as was Collins. Viriditas (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I appreciate your hard work in finding these sources, it's only a handful of in-passing mentions, which in my eyes really does not establish notability. But as I said, I'll leave it aside now. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In your eyes, what would establish notability for an obscure, academic journal founded and written by experts on topics related to Maluku? Please be specific.  The fact that the journal is widely cited should be a flag of sorts.  Are non-notable journals widely cited in the literature? Viriditas (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (unindent) Widely cited for a single researcher generally is being taken as hundreds of citations. For journals one would expect a lot more. The notability of journals is difficult to establish (WP:Notability (academic journals) was not accepted), but for a journal like Cakalele, I would expect it at least to be listed in major databases. Of course, a sure way of showing notability is going directly to WP:N and find non-trivial third party coverage (which is not a mention in a list or such). But you condemn the journal yourself when you say here above that this is an "obscure" journal. That seems to be the opposite of "notable"... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cakalele is indexed by the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, a major database. Were you speaking of another database? If so, which one?  As I have already explained, the journal is notable in the field in Indonesian studies.  That this subject is somewhat obscure to the general public, does not impact its notability in specialist circles. Viriditas (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. Now why don't you add this info to the article? Issue solved. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers
Hi. I have been encouraged by other users to keep working on my article, which is why I have put it in the Article Incubator, to establish notability there. It is now found here Article Incubator/Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers. The version found there is already different from that which was deleted. I will therefore take advantage of your expertise, and would be happy if you could help establish the journal's notability. Also, if you feel you can let users working on this piece know what you feel would help establish notability (e.g. what parts you think are superfluous, and which other would - instead - maximise the journal's claim to notability in the eyes of anybody else), by all means also let us know. --Grasshopper6 (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to say thank you. How darn wrong was I to think you were biased! Well, this is now turning out to be a pleasant and cooperative learning experience!--Grasshopper6 (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

response Elsevier Journals

 * Dear Guillaume2303, thank you so much for helping me out with the images, thanks to your very clear explanation I was able to add a license to my uploaded journal covers. I deleted the external links like you suggested, it is important for us too to be neutral and take wikipedia serious. Could you please take a second look at the minor changes I've made? thank you in advance, J. van der Boom —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.vanderboom (talk • contribs) 13:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

great, thank you for looking into them! A wonderful year to you too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.vanderboom (talk • contribs) 16:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the help with the journals!
hi Guillaume2303, thanks a lot for your help with cleaning up my entries - and i appreciate your patience :) gosh the MOS is long - i've read it once through but will probably be liable to forget here and there - hope you will continue to be patient with me as i learn! thanks again and a happy belated new year! Nkf31 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Plantsman (journal/magazine)
Hi Guillaume2303 (and Happy New Year!). Yes, I have read the additional discussion on the matter (now archived), and the endorsement of your opinion by DGG. I must admit am coming round to your way of thinking, although I think the straightforward description of The Plantsman as a magazine is somewhat misleading (as it would be for The Garden, because it ignores the scholarly history of the publication, even though today it is very magazine-like in character). I would like to consult its editor and see what he thinks, if that's OK with you? SiGarb | (Talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year to you, too! Sure, let me know what he says. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. SiGarb | (Talk) 16:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I have just heard from Mike Grant, editor of The Plantsman. He writes:
 * "Mmmm, very interesting. TP is one or two steps below a peer-reviewed journal so I am not sure what you would classify it as. It’s obviously not an academic journal or a scientific journal, and I wouldn’t class it as a professional magazine (trade journal) because of the amateur readership. As far as I can see, for Wikipedia class’n, it has to be a academic journal or a magazine, they don’t seem to have a category under Periodicals for journal. So, you can see that if I was forced to shoehorn it into one of those categories I think I would have to opt for magazine, and I think I would call it a magazine rather than a journal if I was describing it to someone (indeed, the word magazine is used in the Wikipedia entry itself several times!)."
 * So there you go: it's a Magazine (or perhaps a Periodical?). SiGarb | (Talk) 19:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Could you perhaps make the change, I'm currently swamped with RL ("real life") stuff... As for "periodical", I think that would be a name for anything appearing periodically, so it would include academic journals, magazines, professional and trade magazines, and newspapers. There was a discussion a while ago (it's somewhere in my talk archives, I think archive3) about "journal" vs "magazine" etc and we had a consensus to reserve "journal" for academic journals (which include scientific journals as a subclass) and use "magazine" for the rest (with "professional and trade magazine" as a subclass). Cheers. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Guillaume2303. I'm similarly bogged down in RL at present, with publishers' deadlines fast approaching, but I'll get back to it asap. Bye for now! SiGarb | (Talk) 16:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever
...thought about being an admin? Fences &amp;  Windows  14:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Searching for sources on journals
While creating the article on the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, I discovered something quite interesting. Google Books doesn't reveal all the sources. Take a look at the results from a Google Books search for "American Journal of Physical Anthropology", here. Note that it says there are 2,210 of them. But if you scroll to the next page, it cuts off at 25. So how did I find the sources to demonstrate notability of the AJPA without resorting to the claim that because some indexing service or another lists it, it must be notable? By searching with an additional word; for example "American Journal of Physical Anthropology" founded which ends at 723 results or "American Journal of Physical Anthropology" influential which ends with 90, or with the founder's name. This opens up the Google results somehow. I hope this offers some hope that journals can conform to ordinary WP:PSTS policy in future. If you have a journal which you think should have secondary sources but you couldn't find any, let me know so I can look into it. Abductive (reasoning) 22:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful. I had noticed this, but always assumed that the "vanished" hits were additional pages on the sites already shown. The same goes for Google Scholar. I have tested it a few times using the researcher I know best (myself... -:) and the results are invariably off. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

African Studies Journals
Dear Guillaume2303,

1. Alas: on 27 December 2009 you effectively destroyed the list of African Studies Journals in Wikipedia. You decimated the number of this list of journals from 1.160 to 120 journals. Your remarks while editing were not very friendly: "I think I'm done with this mess", "this is painful".

2. You removed the setup of the page, thereby removing external links (for instance: as you removed external links, two (of the three remaining!) journals under M do not longer have a link to the journal homepage, as the internal Wiki-link is incorrect; same goes for 3 (out of 5 remaining) journals under P). A lot of useful information is now lost. (By the way: if you look at the Wikipedia lemma List of scientific journals in chemistry, you will notice that this list also has a lot of external links (to the journal homepage) without having an internal Wiki-link.)

3. The intention of the Wiki lemma on African Studies Journals was to give information on a broad range of journals used in African Studies. Four organisations cooperated: African Studies Centre in Leiden, Frankfurt University Library, Nordiska African Institute in Uppsala and the African Studies Association of the United Kingdom. The intention was not to have a list of purely scientific journals on African Studies, but to have a useful list of journals about Africa. This intention met with enthousiasm from many organisations in Europe. US and Africa, as reactions show. The lemma was viewed frequently, was updated by others and some organisations linked to this lemma from their homepage (Stanford http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/ssrg/africa/journal.html, Chicago http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/anthro/antweb.html, Michigan http://libguides.lib.msu.edu/content.php?pid=81620&sid=616836 ("useful, ongoing list"). I know about the discussion on Journals, Scientific Journals and Academic Journals at Wikipedia. "African Studies Journals" is not intended as a lemma within Scientific Journals, though a number of the African Studies Journals are scientific journals.

I hate edit wars on Wikipedia. Would you consider to (let me) restore the lemma to its revision on 26 December 2009, while at the same time skipping Category "List of scientific journals" for this lemma?

Kind regards,

Joseph Damen —Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephDamen (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about the unfriendly comments, but that article was indeed a horrible mess and it took me a few hours to clean it all. The use of different colors, the incredible amount of redlinks (wikilinks to nonexisting articles), all the external links for journals that did have wiki articles (where those external links belong), all of this is against WP style and guides. I have put a "welcome" template on your talk page. Please have a look at the guidelines mentioned in there to see what WP is and is not and how articles should look like. WP is an encyclopedia, not a directory. In addition, I'm afraid that quite a number of the African studies journals that still do have articles will in time be deleted, as they do not meet WP's guidelines for notability (quite a few have already been deleted in the past few months). I appreciate that other institutions apparently found the list useful and I suggest that you ask them to host it. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your work
I just want to say I appreciate your editing behind me on the articles about scientific (peer reviewed) journals. These are better articles after you have gone through the article. I am knew to writing articles about scientific journals so an experienced eye helps. Keep up the good work. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoopsie ...
I didn't mean to it, sorry. I saw you removing the stub tag, for some reason got confused and thought you removed it from Society of Consulting Psychology, supposed I had misplaced it when I actually wanted to placed it on Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, did so, remembered that there was a second related journal article and added it there, too, without looking carefully enough. :) Cheers,  Amalthea  19:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

IJAM
Do you think this +INSPEC is enough to meet the indexing requirements for International Journal of Applied Mechanics? I'm all for deleting non-notable journals, but IJAM doesn't strike me as the sort of journals that will fail (although that goes a bit against WP:CRYSTAL) or would not be taken seriously.

I'd invoke WP:IAR, but I can't really tell you why other than deleting the entry on IJAM just doesn't "feel right" to me, even if I find little in policy to support that gut feeling. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)