Talk:Science (journal)

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

Science magazine[edit]

The page Science magazine is currently a redirect to List of science magazines (incidentally, this article was not in that list, so I added it). Methinks the redirect should probably be to here (article). Comments?
Enquire (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The name of this publication is Science, not Science Magazine, so the specific addition you made to List of science magazines is incorrect. But whether Science should be there is also problematic: that list is about publications for non-expert audiences, while Science is a scientific journal and thus explicitly excluded from that list. (Note that Nature (journal) is also excluded.) Of course, everyone is a non-expert outside of their specific area, and so much of the news, commentatry, etc., in Science is written for such a non-expert (albeit well-informed) audience. But I think we should respect the exclusion of what are primarily scientific journals. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


Am I the only one who finds the 'lack-of-citations notice' ironic? Also, can we please clean up the talk page so we can get rid of that four year old orange bar at the top of the main article? (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was time to archive. I have done that.
Note to the anonymous IP if s/he should pass by again:
  1. New discussions should always be added at the bottom of the talk page.
  2. Please sign your comments with the "four tildes" ("~~~~").
  3. Removal of the "orange bar" (the 'refimprove' tag) is contingent on someone deciding whether there is still a need for additional citations, such as unsourced material. You could do this yourself, but please check that you understand the applicable policies (e.g., WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources).
~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed tag[edit]

I decided to be WP:BOLD and remove the maintenance tag placed on this article way back in 2011. There is no specific problem that the tag mentions that needs to be addressed other than more citations are needed (it still seems kind of general). And there is no related talk page discussion that I can see (see Archive 1). In answer to the tag - there are plenty of references and citations that support the text in this article - so this article is probably (and hopefully) much improved since the date of the tag - 2011. Feel free to discuss here if necessary. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Fine with me. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)