Talk:Annual Reviews (publisher)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Academic Journals (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Notability of individual journals[edit]

User:Lilac Soul recently created a series of redirects here, both redirecting red links and overwriting existing stubs on individual Annual Review publications. I think that individual AR journals are notable and if stubbed (ex. [1]) should not be redirected. Comments? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think having an individual article on each of them is overkill, when they can so easily be grouped into a single article. Of course, it one of the reviews is particularly notable on its own, it could have its own article as well, in which case we would use something like {{main|Annual Review of NOTABLE}}. However, please note that there only existed one article which I overwrote with a redirect - and as can be seen from the diff it contained very little information. I will, however, add it to this article. I think that if we agree that (at least the majority of) these articles belong in a single article, then this article should be expanded a bit and each individual journal should have its own section in this article. -Lilac Soul (talk contribs count) I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 07:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not the least overkill--they are almost uniformly among the very most cited journals in their disciplines, and in most cases also the pioneer review journals. I apologize for not doing this myself, for I meant to several months ago. How do you propose we settle it--I suggest,Piotrus, that you do a really good article on the one on your subject as an example, which I believe is in fact sociology, and we go on slowly from there. It is never a good idea to do a large number of changes of this sort at once without prior discussion. That's what got the episodes and character arbitrations started. Rather than go that route, lets take them one at a time. if any are proposed for deletion, I will of course strongly defend them--I understand their importance. DGG (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I just checked the ISI rankings, and I'll of course have to agree with you now - they are all notable for individual articles. However, as they didn't exist already, redirecting to this article was a good place to start. And I still think that if they're all going to be three-line stubs, it would still be better to sort them all into one article, like this one. But if we can take the time to write proper articles on them, then yes, let's have articles on them all. -Lilac Soul (talk contribs count) I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 07:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As long as the substubs are completely merged here, the issue is not big; and we all agree that if they are expanded to something more than a substub they can be split off - so I think the issue is resolved. I'd love to expand on the sociological one, but - as is often the case with journals (or individual publications) - there is indeed not that much material about them. PS. Out of curiosity: how can one check the ISI rankings? Its a skill I wanted to master for some time :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
They're on their website at [2] - but you can also go here. -Lilac Soul (talk contribs count) I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 19:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)