Talk:Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Original Research[edit]

There seems to be various original research claims in here, such as references to letters in the Royal Society archives. These ought really to be references to secondary scholarship. What's going on? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


"... printed in the English-speaking world, and was only three months shy of being the oldest [scientific journal] in the world."

The oldest being? —wwoods 21:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Journal des sçavans apparently. Carcharoth 10:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
not true. Journal des Scavans was not a science journal! It was a general journal with some science in it. This is extensively documented PointOfPresence (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RSTB 362 1479 thumbnail.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:RSTB 362 1479 thumbnail.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing relevant information[edit]

There is nothing wrong with the current wording, and things like the journal being the longest running science publication need to be mentioned. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Intention to expand this article[edit]

This article is listed as an 'Anniversary article' on Wikimedia UK here: (for 6 March 2015). As declared in my sig, I do have a COI, but intend to expand this article in the coming months. While I will make every effort (again as per my COI) to observe rules on neutral point of view, verifiability and reliable sources, it would be great for others to edit/add/improve as they see fit. (Sjanusz|talk)(COI) 07:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I should also state that I am working on improvements to the article in my userspace at User:Sjanusz/PT (Sjanusz|talk)(COI) 21:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I will move over a few sections from the draft in my userspace, before possibly closing it (Sjanusz|talk)(COI) 04:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


  • I just did some cleanup, mostly bringing the layout in line with WP:MOS. However, some of the line breaks in the middle of sentences give the impression that (part of) this text may be copy/pasted from somewhere else. Anybody knows whether this is the case? --Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed that. The dubious material was mostly added in January, by Anna M. Gielas, and appears to come from this document. The document has a Creative Commons licence, and the text hasn't been slavishly cut and pasted, but has been used selectively, so it just about scrapes under the wire of WP:COPYVIO; but in my opinion it could certainly do with a bit more paraphrasing and abridgement. GrindtXX (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm The license is "the text in this work is licensed under the creative commons attribution-non commercial-noDerivs 2.0 UK" and this is a derivative work. So I don't this works. It of course needs attributing, and can be quoted, or rephrased as any source. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)