Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Academic Journals (talk)
WP:AJ
Main / Talk
Resources
Main / talk
Writing guide
Main / talk
Assessment
Main / talk
Notability guidelines
Main / talk
Journals cited by Wikipedia
Main / talk / Typos

Bibliographies of academics[edit]

Although perhaps only tangential relevant to this project, people here might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Aronowitz bibliography, which bears on lists of academic books and journal articles. --Randykitty (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Zotero now has a Wikidata translator[edit]

Citation management tool Zotero now has two Wikidata translators. Not only does it read metadata from Wikidata items about works, so you can add them to your Zotero library, but it can export metadata in a format understood by QuickStatements, enabling users to more easily create Wikidata items about the works already in their Zotero libraries. Since Zotero can already read metadata about works from other websites, or data files such as BibTeX and COinS, it can now be used as an intermediary to import that data. See d:Wikidata:Zotero. The translator was developed at the recent WikiCite event in Vienna. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caribbean Journal of International Relations & Diplomacy[edit]

This AfD was closed. I have requested a relist, so that editors knowledgeable about academic journals also can participate. --Randykitty (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Doesn't look like a relist is going to happen, so the AfD for this journal, that misses NJournals by a mile, has been closed "keep". I encourage editors here to increase their participation at journal-related AfDs (they are listed on the main project page). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Hello,
Please note that Editor-in-chief, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Women in Red's new initiative: #1day1woman[edit]

1day1woman.png
Women in Red is pleased to introduce...
A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman
  • Create articles on any day of any month
  • Cover women and their works in any field of interest
  • Feel free to add articles in other languages, too
  • Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about two new mathematics journals[edit]

A request for advice/guidance: my research field has recently seen the appearance of two new journals, the Journal of Combinatorial Algebra (published by the European Mathematical Society; indexed in MathSciNet; three issues have appeared) and Algebraic Combinatorics (to be published by the Centre Mersenne; no issues have yet appeared, but it has been the subject of an article in Inside Higher Ed). Both are obviously reputable institutions. I'm not a regular editor of Wikipedia articles about journals; do these (yet) meet the basic notability requirements for Wikipedia? If not, what's the usual time-frame for notability in this kind of situation?

Thanks, JBL (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Algebraic Combinatorics is an unusual case because of the press coverage; it might well pass WP:NJournals #3. But I'm skeptical whether Journal of Combinatorial Algebra is notable yet; inclusion in MathSciNet shows that it is legitimate (as does its sponsorship by EMS) but because MathSciNet indexes almost every legitimate mathematical journal I don't think it can be considered as the sort of selective index requested by NJournals #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Asking at WP:WPM for their input on those journals would help. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll put a pointer there back to this discussion. --JBL (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd say that Algebraic Combinatorics merits an article, but I am also skeptical that Journal of Combinatorial Algebra does yet. I added the latter to the list of publications in the European Mathematical Society page, so that we have some record of it. Filling in that redlink at a later date, when the notability is unquestionable, ought to be easy enough. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks David Eppstein and XOR'easter for your thoughts. Once AC has the standard data (DOI, ISSN, etc.) in place I'll try putting together an article, but I'll hold off on JCA. XOR'easter, thanks, that is a good idea. --JBL (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Frontiers in Public Health[edit]

A paid editor would like to add to the Allen Meadors article that he is an associate editor of a journal called Frontiers in Public Health. See the discussion here. It seems that the journal has 3,279 editors(!), 702 of whom are associate editors. Is it worth mentioning such a positon in a biographical article, given that the journal has so many editors? It hardly sounds like a selective position. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the Manual of Style for Academic Journal pages?[edit]

Team is there a Manual of Style for Academic Journals? Can this be listed in main page. Also please advise if Infobox for Journals be added to the project page.--Wikishagnik (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wikishagnik (talk · contribs). There isn't a manual of style, but we do have a writing guide located at WP:JWG. Was this what you were looking for? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
No, while What to include and what not to include might help those who have worked on articles of Academic Journal, a new editor like me would have a tough time organizing an article. Yes, articles as stubs would be OK, but would be bad in the long run, so yes, a Manual of Style would help a lot.--Wikishagnik (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Template_talk:Infobox_journal#Conversion_to_Wikidata[edit]

From many discussions at Wikimania, myself, DGG, and several others felt this infobox was a prime candidate for conversion to Wikidata. I've started a discussion at the link above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/JCW-CleanerBot[edit]

If you have comments, please make them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 21#Wikipedia:MCW[edit]

Please participate in this discussion. This is related to the creation of a magazine-equivalent to WP:JCW. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

{{Infobox journal}} update![edit]

  1. We now have a |bluebook= field
  2. You get prompted to add ISO 4 / Bluebook abbreviations (law journals only) if they don't exist
    1. Using |abbreviation=no / |bluebook=no will suppress the prompts.
    2. The relevant tracking categories are Category:Infobox journals with missing ISO 4 abbreviations / Category:Infobox journals with missing Bluebook abbreviations
  3. You get prompted to create ISO 4 / Bluebook redirects if they don't exist.
    1. You only get prompted if |abbreviation=/|bluebook= are set
    2. Maintenance templates at the top of articles have links to facilitate abbreviation validation / redirect creation.
    3. The relevant tracking categories are Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 redirects / Category:Articles with missing Bluebook redirects
  4. We now have {{R from Bluebook}} to match {{R from ISO 4}}

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks so much for your excellent work with this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

ISO redirect creation[edit]

We've got plenty of work to do in Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 redirects! I've made instructions to make this stupid easy to do. You can easily create several 100s of redirects per hour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Going to ping everyone on this

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't find any info on which words should be omitted, e.g.: "and", "of", and less obviously, "Series". By the way, this database provides ISO-4 abbreviations for many journals (including non-medical).Tokenzero (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tokenzero: As far as I can tell, all articles (e.g. the), prepositions (e.g. of, in, on), and conjunctions (e.g. and) should be omitted. Also the NLM databases provides NLM abbreviations/journal codes, which are often but not always ISO abbreviations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: I added a link to the actual text of the standard to ISO-4, it's actually more readable than I thought (though a summary on ISO-4 would be useful). You're right, they omit articles, conjunctions, and prepositions. They also omit generic part terms like section, series, part, unless "required for identification". For example apparently Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A should be J. Comb. Theory A (without Ser., without a comma), so the "ISO abbreviation" specified by NLM (next to their own abbreviation) is technically wrong too. Tokenzero (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Predatory journal list[edit]

Would it be okay if you guys put this predatory journal list on the front page of your project, asking contributors to check the publisher of an academic journal against this list? It may be useful for people who use academic journals as sources and/or write about them. User:Drmies gave me a heads up on this page. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOLD Go right ahead and put it somewhere! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Beall's list is discontinued. It's ok to use it as reference, but please don't link random copies, use an archived copy of the actual list. I'm not sure what sorts of "checks" you envisage, but nowadays it's quite useful to check whether an open access journal is included in http://doaj.org/ with the DOAJ seal. --Nemo 19:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I started a "Suggestions" section - Please check the Wikicode (it seems work and look OK) and feel free to change or add anything WhisperToMe (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
You tell people to check the Directory of Open Access Journals, WhisperToMe, but don't tell them what to do if it is or isn't on there. Surely this only applies to OA journals in any case? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Lemme revise that... - If an OA journal is not on the list, what do you do? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
https://blog.doaj.org/2017/06/02/are-you-publishing-with-the-correct-journal/ has some tips too. --Nemo 07:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Education/Educational in ISO 4[edit]

"Education" and "Educational" don't show in the LTWA lookup. I've seen them both abbreviate to "Edu." and "Educ."—not sure whether/when it's consistent. Please {{ping}} if you can help. czar 18:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see that "educa-" with the hyphen is meant to denote both "Education" and "Educational", so both abbreviate to "educ." (Similar with "archi-" to "arch." for "archives", "archival", etc.) Hope that can help someone else and perhaps worth explaining in the guide? czar 18:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Medical in ISO 4[edit]

In the LTWA lookup, "medical" corresponds to "méd." with the accent. Is this correct? Medical Teacher would be "Méd. Teach."? czar 19:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: The list looks inconsistent as to where it places diacritics (compare biomedic-), but the general rules say: Diacritic marks shall be retained in the word abbreviations. For languages where an alternative spelling without diacritics is also possible, this alternative may be used instead. I understand here that only existing diacritics (in French titles) are retained. Tokenzero (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks czar 19:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications in ISO 4[edit]

"Its" isn't an article or conjunction—should it be included in the journal's ISO 4? czar 01:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

My gut says no and that possessives should be left out. "Teach. Math. Its Appl." gets 29 hits, "Teach. Math. Appl." gets 729 hits. Both redirects should be created, but I'll ping @DGG: here to know which should be tagged with {{R from ISO 4}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Reviewing the standard in detail, I see nothing that says possessive should be excluded, so I've marked Teach. Math. Its Appl. as the ISO one. Both are created however, since both are likely search terms.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Romanian Journal of History and International Studies[edit]

Could someone please review Draft:Romanian Journal of History and International Studies? The draft says the journal is peer-reviewed, but I cannot tell whether it is notable. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 03:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

A tool for searching the LTWA[edit]

I've made a simple webpage to make searching the List of Title Word Abbreviations easier. Tokenzero (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Tokenzero (talk · contribs) That is fantastic! Would there be a way to pass a search key via an API to your website and make an automatic query? Something like [1]? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for "International Journal of Geographical Information Science" we get presented with

Words Abbr. Languages
-graph- -gr. eng
internation- int. fre, eng
journal j. fre, eng
geograph- geogr. fre, eng
information inf. mul
scienc- sci. fre, eng

If possible, I would suggest presenting things in order (I think it generally does so, but the -graph- match is presented out of order) and keep the capitals if they were given.

Words Abbr. Languages
Internation- Int. fre, eng
Journal J. fre, eng
Geograph- Geogr. fre, eng
-graph- -gr. eng
Information Inf. mul
Scienc- Sci. fre, eng

However, when you search for something like "New Journal of Physics", it would be nice if it presented things like

Words Abbr. Languages
New New eng
Journal J. fre, eng
of eng
Physics Phys. mul

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I added the search API and fixed the ordering. Keeping the capitalization and adding things not on the list requires a bit of rewriting, I'll try that in the evening/tomorrow. But to avoid misleading I'd keep the table unchanged and just put a full probably standard abbreviation as a line below (with a warning on possibly unhandled corner cases like in vivo). Tokenzero (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Awesome, the "probable" abbreviation would do just as well. I'll add the link to the templates right now! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
In "https://mimuw.edu.pl/~mw290715/iso4/index.html?search=Revue_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9coise_de_linguistique_th%C3%A9orique_et_appliqu%C3%A9e", it somehow misses "Revue", "Québecoise", and "Appliquée", which should match "Revue-", "Québecois" and "Appliqu-". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
They should be there if you turn off english only: [2]. I left english only on as default, since otherwise it's much slower, it hangs for several seconds. For Québecoise the LTWA has Québecois, without a dash at the end, which is why it didn't match. I changed so that matches allow an e/s/es/n at endings (I'm not sure how to handle cases like priorities (not in the list) vs priority (in the list without dashes) in general). Tokenzero (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah I see, brainfart there. Glad to know it all works when you pay attention :p Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In [3], the tool misses "Orthopsychiatr-". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
There's only an orthopsychiatri- -> orthopsychiatr. rule, consistent with the general rule: Words from which only a single letter would be dropped are not abbreviated. Tokenzero (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... wasn't aware of that rule. Makes sense though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it make sense to code this in Lua (in a module/template) and have it process the infobox parameter automatically? czar 13:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I mean, I suppose that could always be coded, but GIGO concerns are rather high. If you can code it, it'd at least be worth looking into. For now, I've added a link to the infobox telling users to look it up when |abbreviation= is missing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid the error rate could be too high (especially for non-English titles), but I did a dump of all journal infoboxes, so I will be able to tell more soon. The task is too heavy for invoking in a template, I believe; there's ~50000 patterns to check, ~1000 of which can't be excluded just by looking at first letters. But a bot should be easy. Tokenzero (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Even better might be to check it against each article's Wikidata entry, and eventually pulling from Wikidata within the infobox template. Still, the bot/hardcoded version will be less fallible than human editors, if indeed ISO 4 only follows simple rules. I know I corrected at least a handful incorrect abbreviations in the 100+ entries I recently checked in the effort mentioned above. A bot could also run periodically to check for new/changed entries. Alternatively, it might even be possible to build the code as some kind of regex checker within the Wikidata parameter itself... so no human intervention is ever needed/allowed. czar 04:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

It's still work in progress but looks promising: among a sample of 1926 (out of 7344) infobox journals, 531 have an empty abbreviation parameter, 907 have exactly the one guessed by the bot, 487 have something different. The mismatches are listed here. The bot is mostly right, some example problems where the bot is wrong (some fixable, some hard – require human intervention):

  • many non-English titles (mostly fixable, I just need to enable them and provide lists of articles/prepositions; accents should already work, see e.g. Dædalus, which was the most painful part; one hard problem is that I can't always rely on the language parameter, e.g. Annalen der Physik publishes only in English now).
  • dependent titles (mostly we could just cut anything after a colon, but see e.g. portal: Libraries and the Academy; also I don't cut the words 'Section' etc.; in general it seems hard to identify dependent titles; also the single-word-title rule is applies wrongly to them).
  • proper names (e.g. Dalton Transactions should not abbreviate Dalton, despite the -ton rule for cities; that's of course hard).
  • overlapping patterns (probably fixable; e.g. health has a rule for not abbreviating, but is now matched by the pattern heal- -> heal.; Another example is oceanography matching ocean- and -graph-, metallurg- matching metal-, or New Zealand matching -land).
  • comments in parentheses (fixable, by just ignoring them; but generating comments is of course hard, e.g. Annals of Physics and Annalen der Physik should both have a comment according to ISO-4, since they're different journals abbreviating to the same Ann. Phys.).
  • random bugs (fixable; e.g. of is often preserved, dunno why; québécoise is again wrong).
  • weird omissions in the LTWA (e.g. it has a rule chimi- -> chimi. for fre,ita,rum, but not for lat (latin); similarly ficti- and portug- in French but not in English; should we follow the LTWA to the letter here? Another kind of example is abbreviations for all kinds of -engineer-, but not for microengineering. For politi- the LTWA is explicit in saying this should not be abbreviated).

I'll fix some errors this week, then I guess we can run a bot to generate and add all missing ISO-4 abbreviations (and those obviously wrong, like all caps or dots missing). For others what would be the best? Split the list into 100s and somehow add links to apply an automatic edition when a human reviewed it? Tokenzero (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

For mismatches, I've created {{ISO 4 mismatch}}, while can be used as below [see code]:

Pagename |title= |abbreviation= |bot-guess= Verify
ACM Transactions on Graphics ACM Trans. Graph. [Edit]

ACM Trans Graph [Edit]

ACM Trans. Gr. [Create]

ACM Trans Gr [Create]

Verify

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Update: The full abbreviations are now shown in the online tool (now also on GitHub). I've fixed the most common bugs and made a new list of mismatches: out of 7352 infobox journals, 1739 have no given abbreviation, 4303 have the same as guessed by the bot, 1310 have something different (in which case apparently the bot is right about 90-95% of the time). (This now takes <5 minutes to compute). Now I suggest the following: I can write a bot (using pywikibot and mwparserfromhell) that actually fills an abbreviation-bot= parameter (or do you prefer bot-guess=?) in each journal infobox. You could then make this appear when no abbreviation is given and handle mismatches somehow (auto-include it in a category, display some text suggesting a change and allow clearing the parameter when the bot is wrong). (For redirects, I could later write a bot that does them automatically for all articles where the bot guess is equal/the only one available.) Tokenzero (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Tokenzero: could you make the mismatch list use {{ISO 4 mismatch}} template? Feel free to tweak the template as needed though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Done. I had to limit to 100 rows as the parser complains about expensive templates (CPU usage ~1s per 100). What next? For fixing the infoboxes, do you think editors should just go through a list like this, or should I write a bot that fills the new parameter? For redirects I believe everything could be automated when the abbreviation parameter is the same as the bot guess, because then it is almost certainly correct, and it would handle most of the job. Tokenzero (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you do category scraping to generate the list, or is it based on datadumps? I think mismatch cleaning is something that needs human review (e.g. Dalton Transactions ISO 4 is Dalton Trans., but bot guess is Dalt. Trans.), rather than a bot project, but certainly creating having a bot create redirects when there is a match between the infobox abbreviation and the bot guess would be very nice. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I scraped it once (from the API generator listing pages transcluding Infobox Journal; the categories have quite a few journals without infoboxes). The scraping takes ~30min (with the API, delays, and maxlag recommended for bots). Yes, I agree it needs human review. My idea was to maybe fill a new, hidden parameter in the infobox, so that when there is a mismatch, the infobox template would show a small question mark or a full ambox like "The abbreviation in Infobox Journal might be non-standard, a bot suggested: Dalt. Trans.. Please verify what it is the correct ISO-4 abbreviation. If the automatic suggestion is wrong, set abbreviation-bot=false." This also makes editing a bit easier, as the suggested fix would be right below the abbreviation parameter. On the other hand the editor should look elsewhere anyway, at least to see the list of matching patterns. And looking at the list gives a good overview of typical mistakes on both sides. So I'm fine with just the list. Tokenzero (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm almost sure maxlag only matters for edits, rather than queries. I'm also almost sure you can bulk query as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Impact factors for 3 law journals[edit]

Could someone (@DGG:/@Randykitty:?) look up the impact factors for

And update the articles accordingly? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

  • The first one is not indexed by Clarivate Analytics, so it doesn't have an IF. The IF listed in the article is probably taken from the Washington and Lee rankings (and should be removed from the infobox). The 2016 IFs for the other two are 2.630 and 1.705, respectively. As for the Indiana journal, the IFs mentioned in the articles are probably from the Washington and Lee rankings. W&L strive to include every law journal published in the US, so it's not selective in the sense of NJournals. We have hundreds of articles on (US and other countries') law journals and I've never been able to figure out a good way to separate the notable ones from the non-notable ones (of which there are many: W&L lists lots of journals that are not cited at all during some years). --Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of selectiveness, the main issue is that this isn't the impact factor, but rather something else entirely (like a pseudo-IF). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely, this is not the IF, but I wouldn't necessarily call it "fake" or "pseudo" either. An IF is number of citations during a given period divided by number of articles published in a period of interest. Clarivate uses (citations in 2016 to 2015 and 2014)/(articles published in 2014 and 2015), but Scopus calculates a "Citescore", which is (citations in 2016 to 2015 and 2014 and 2013)/(articles published in 2013 and 2014 and 2015). W&L uses a different year span, but I think the basic formula is the same. I'm not really sure how W&L calculates their IF, but it seems to cover 7 or 8 years ([4]). I'm not sure how to handle this. Law journal are really in general a different kind of academic journal (for starters, most are student-edited and not necessarily peer-reviewed). W&L seems to be the standard in that particular field, much more than Clarivate (formerly Thomson Reuters, formerly ISI). W&L presents a lot of statistics on journals and most of these articles are created by the students that edit them, who then cherry-pick to present the W&L metric that places "their" journal in as much positive light as possible. I usually just edit these articles to be neutral, but don't see much in the way of establishing notability. The Indiana Health Law Review is a good example. Not indexed in any selective database, so should we PROD this? How about the hundreds of other law journals? And given what I said above about the article creators, PRODs are bound to be contested ("our journal really is very important"), this would lead to a lot of AfDs (with the usual crowd of "it's an academic journal so we should cover it"). --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Headbomb and Randykitty, I have a few thoughts that relate to this discussion:
  1. Impact factors for law journals in infoboxes: The Washington and Lee impact factor shows (very roughly) the average number of citations in other law journals per article per year. You can learn more about their methodology at this link. To calculate this score, Washington and Lee only looks at citations in other law journals that are accessible through Westlaw, so it does not account for citations in other publications (e.g. if the Harvard Law Review is cited by British Politics, that citation won't count towards the Harvard Law Review's impact factor if British Politics is not available on Westlaw). That said, I do think it would be useful to include Washington and Lee's impact factor in the infobox of Law Journal articles. Is there any way we can add this to the template?
  2. Notability of law journals: For the last several years, I have been thinking that we need to have some sort of formal standards for the notability of law journals. However, after giving it some thought, I think that we should use the standards that are already established at WP:JOURNALCRIT. I think law journals can satisfy the first criterion if they have been cited in published court opinions (this shows that courts treat the journal as a reliable source and that it is influential in its subject area). For the second criterion, if the Washington and Lee rankings show that a law journal is rarely cited, then I think it's safe to say that the journal fails to meet this standard. I think very few law journals will qualify as notable under the third criterion alone, and I can only think of handful off the top of my head (see, e.g., The Green Bag (1889–1914)). Because law journals occupy a fairly unique space in academic publishing, I don't think that being indexed (or not being indexed) in selective databases is a good measure for notability. Instead, I think we should look on a case-by-case basis at whether the journal has made a significant contribution to legal scholarship.
  3. A quick response regarding the selection process of law review articles: Unlike most disciplines, which regulate scholarship through "pre-publication screening" (viz. the peer review process), legal scholarship primarily relies on what William Baude describes as "post-publication screening". In post-publication screening, a wider range of ideas and arguments are published, and those ideas and arguments are then later refined and critiqued by future articles, books, court opinions, etc-. Consequently, when evaluating whether a journal is considered "influential," it is important to look holistically at the role the journal has played in advancing discourse or scholarship in its field.
In any event, I hope you are both enjoying a nice weekend! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
If we recognized the W&L impact, I'd rather have a |w&l-impact=/|w&l-year= for that information than putting it in the |impact= field, to make it clear this is a W&L metric, rather than the impact factor. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's essentially what I envisioned. We definitely should not give the impression that Washington and Lee's impact factor and the impact factor are equivalent. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Dots and No dots?[edit]

I took a look at Chemical Vapor Deposition (journal) and created the Chem. Vap. Deposition redirect. A second maintenance template also wants the Chem Vap Deposition (without the dots) redirect to be created. I saw nothing in the instructions that says anything about this, so is this a mistake? or should we create the redirects without the dots, too?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  11:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: The infobox only needs the dotted abbreviation [anyone can easily picture the dotless version]. But the dotless abbreviation is a likely search term and are rather other used as a matter of style, so both redirects need to be created. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Headbomb! And for the purpose of categorization, we can then assume that the "dotless" version cannot be sorted to Category:Redirects from ISO 4, and instead must be considered an
Of course, that is probably something that most editors won't know to do, and we probably don't want to make the instructions too wordy and hard to handle.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  21:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Why can't we assume that? It's what we did for years without issue. They're a stylistic alternative, not a different standard. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't have much of a problem with it if nobody else does; however, in the instructions at the category, trouble has been taken to stress the importance of being careful with the dots:
Also verify that the dots are appropriate. Cell Biochem. Biophys. refers to Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics whereas Cell. Biochem. Biophys. would refer to Cellular Biochemistry and Physics which is a either a non-existent or different publication entirely.
So there might be some confusion because of that. If editors are okay with it, then so am I.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  06:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that the "R from modification" rcat is a better fit for the sans-dots, and it would be easy to implement for future redirect creations via the new, preloaded infobox template. The bigger issue would be whether a bot should go back and change the rcats on the redirects previously created czar 07:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
It's a much worse fit as they became nearly untraceable. {{R from modification}} contains a plethora of other crap, {{R from ISO 4}} only contains (or ought to contain) ISO 4 redirects. If a specific template needs to be added to them, it should be {{R from ISO 4 (dotless)}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Tracability is more important than the fact that were categorizing non-ISO 4 codes as ISO 4 codes? Who cares about tracing the incorrect codes anyway? Isn't the main idea for them to exist as search aids? After all, they are not ISO 4 codes and should not be sorted to that category.
Here's an example: the Millennia redirect targets Millennium as its {{R from plural}}; however, the Millenia redirect, which also targets Millennium and is a good search term, is tagged with {{R from misspelling}} and definitely not with {{R from plural}} − it's not a plural, it's a misspelling. And in like form, Chem Vap Deposition isn't an ISO 4 code, it's an {{R from modification}} of the real ISO 4 code.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
It is an ISO 4 code. Just one without dots. To quote from the standard "Full stops shall only be used to indicate an abbreviation. Full stops may be omitted from abbreviated words in applications that require limited use of punctuation." [emphasis mine].
And yes, traceability is important. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I see your point; however, that just verifies why the dotless versions are good search terms. It certainly does not confirm that the dotless versions are ISO 4 codes. If the dotless versions were to appear in the standard list of ISO 4 codes, then they would be ISO 4 codes – if they do not appear there, then they are not ISO 4 codes. Please show where Chem Vap Deposition appears in any list of ISO 4 codes.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I just literally quoted you the standard. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Then perhaps I misunderstand it?... "Full stops shall only be used to indicate an abbreviation. Full stops may be omitted from abbreviated words in applications that require limited use of punctuation." Wikipedia is not an application that requires limited use of punctuation, is it? So the omission of full stops is not necessary here. So if the dotless versions are not in an ISO 4 listing, then how can they be considered to be ISO 4 codes? And you have yet to explain how going dotless may adversely affect the journal name, like the example given on the category page: Cell. Biochem. Biophys. vs. Cell Biochem. Biophys. What page would the "Cell Biochem Biophys" (dotless) redirect target if there were articles about both of those journals?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Applications that require limited use of punctuation could be anything. A way to save space, a style decision, etc. Typical use would be in the reference section of a certain journal, which decides the dots are superfluous and ought to be omitted. As for the second part of your post, I have no idea what you're even referring to with me "having to explain how going dotless may adversely affect..." I don't recall making any such claims. But this is still immaterial to the main point: dotless ISO is still ISO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

And it's because of the existence of those limited-use apps and the blip about them in the standard that make the dotless versions good search terms; however, neither the apps nor the blip in the standard justify calling them ISO 4 codes. They are code modifications similar to misspellings and should not be treated as something they are not.
As for the "dotless confusion", I explained above... from "the instructions at Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 redirects, trouble has been taken to stress the importance of being careful with the dots:"
Also verify that the dots are appropriate. Cell Biochem. Biophys. refers to Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics whereas Cell. Biochem. Biophys. would refer to Cellular Biochemistry and Physics which is a either a non-existent or different publication entirely.
So I ask again, which page would you make the "Cell Biochem Biophys" (dotless) redirect target if there were articles about both Cellular Biochemistry and Biophysics (ISO 4 code Cell. Biochem. Biophys.) and Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics (ISO 4 code Cell Biochem. Biophys.)? Don't you see how confusing and misguiding it can be to call the dotless versions ISO 4 codes? They are not on any ISO 4 code list, so I'm afraid they do not qualify as true ISO 4 codes – no more than "ca.t" is a correct spelling of "cat" nor "(name)@gmailcom" is a correct email address.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
There is no Cellular Biochemistry and Biophysics, so the question is moot. If there was the possibility of having the same abbreviation in either format, they would be distinguished with a parenthetical statement like Open Med and Open Med (Wars). You can scream to the winds that Open Med (Wars) is not an ISO 4 code, but the ISO 4 standard is crystal clear that it is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
"Scream to the winds?" lol – funny as your username, Headbomb! A page title is either in an ISO listing or it isn't. If it isn't, then it should not be sorted to the category. It's really that simple. Seems it is you who are "screaming to the winds". Why are you so invested in categorizing redirect page titles incorrectly?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  13:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Those are ISO 4 abbreviation, per the standard, and are categorized correctly. It's you who somehow insists on not categorizing them as they should. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You and I will have to "agree to disagree" then, and hope that others will include their opinions and comments about this. IMAO, you misinterpret the following blip in the standard:
Full stops shall only be used to indicate an abbreviation. Full stops may be omitted from abbreviated words in applications that require limited use of punctuation.
That blip does not give Wikipedia nor anyone else the authority to call dotless modifications of ISO 4 codes actual and real ISO 4 codes. Only those codes in the ISO 4 listing should be sorted to Category:Redirects from ISO 4. Dotless variations should be sorted to Category:Redirects from modifications. czar has already weighed in on this, and it would be good to hear from more editors.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
No, what that "blip" does is make dotless codes ISO 4-compliant codes. The ISO decided that for itself, we didn't need to do so, it's written black on white. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
And where does it say that – exactly? Where does it say, exactly, that dotless variations are ISO 4 codes?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
"Full stops may be omitted from abbreviated words in applications that require limited use of punctuation." That's where it says it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You seem to keep totally forgetting the second half of that sentence.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Your argument that a standard-compliant abbreviation ceases to be standard-compliant when the conditions of compliance to that standard are met is complete nonsense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
As is your argument that Wikipedia is an application that has limited-use punctuation?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Redirects are for likely search terms. Wikipedia doesn't have to be where the "limited space application" applies, although those are very often used in Wikipedia (WP:CITEVAR applies here). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes thank you, they are "search terms", and nowhere does it say that the dotless variations are true ISO 4 codes. They are as you say "search terms", and search terms belong in a different category, in this case they belong in Category:Redirects from modifications.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
It says so directly in the standard. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
And around and around we go. The standard certainly makes no such claim in the blip you keep quoting, so where in the standard does it "directly" say that the dotless variations are ISO codes?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
"Full stops may be omitted from abbreviated words in applications that require limited use of punctuation." - Taken directly from the ISO 4 Standard documentation. Now stop your WP:TE/WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT/WP:DEADHORSE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll be glad to stop, Headbomb. Just trying to help. I came here with a question and instead of finding help, I found an editor who is so invested in this idea that they cannot and will not accept another editor's interpretation as even remotely, let alone possibly, correct. Be well.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid other editors don't care, both options are perfectly fine ;) The formal question is whether under applications that require limited use of punctuation you can qualify redirecting users that didn't use dots for whatever reason, which you can (as demonstrated above) argue either way (by the way, what do you mean by ISO 4 listing? all lists I've seen are inconsistent with ISO-4 in some cases). But! Don't take the ISO-4 standard too seriously, there are many imprecise corner cases, obvious bugs (for just one example, the LTWA uses a few language codes that do not exist at all) and blatant impracticalities. I've never used rcats, so I have no idea what would be actually more useful for Wikipedia, my guess is whichever is easier to apply now. Is either of you ready to concede? If not (seriously?), ask for a bot that changes them all to {{R from dotless ISO 4}}. Tokenzero (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I made {{R from dotless ISO 4}}:
  • From a dotless ISO 4 abbreviation: This is a redirect from a dotless ISO 4 publication title abbreviation to the unabbreviated publication title, or an article containing information about the publication.
    • In cases of an ISO 4 abbreviation with partially missing dots, or dots used inappropriately, please use {{R from misspelling}}. In case of a fully dotted ISO 4 abbreviation, use {{R from ISO 4}}.
The rcat is currently a subcat of Category:Redirects from modifications and not a subcat of Category:Redirects from ISO 4. {{R from ISO 4 (dotless)}} is an alias. That's my vote. Wumbolo (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, maybe editors should care? The ISO 4 code category gets inflated with dotless ISO 4 versions – for each valid ISO 4 code in the category there is one dotless version that should be in a different category. So if there are 5,000 entries in the category, then 2,500 or half of them are needlessly cluttering up the category.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I already know that you believe they should be in a different category, please. Is it OK for you if they are put in {{R from dotless ISO 4}} (a subcat of Category:Redirects from modifications)? @Headbomb:: same question. It is OK for me. Tokenzero (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Just as a curiosity, why did you think an extra category and rcat were needed? The dotless versions are just search terms, so they would be right at home with thousands of other search terms in Category:Redirects from modifications. I know you're trying to help; however, I really don't see a need for the extra categorization.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I've tweaked the templates, and put the category as Category:Redirects from ISO 4. Otherwise it makes everything much harder to patrol/review/browse, and causes categorization headaches with abbreviations such as Cell Host Microbe which is the same ISO 4 abbreviation in both dotted and dotless variation. If somehow a dedicated Category:Redirects from dotless ISO 4 if desired (please no), that category should be a subcategory of Category:Redirects from ISO 4, not Category:Redirects from modifications. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: It looks like there's a need for a maintenance category including both variants, because for every journal we want to have a redirect from dotted ISO-4 abbreviations as well as from dotless variants, because these are often used (example 1, example 2, example 3 – all mention ISO or the LTWA). This category is never used as references for checking what the recommended ISO-4 abbreviation is (the infobox is for that). Would it be OK for you if this maintenance category was named Category:Redirects from ISO 4 for short, but had a description clarifying that it should include not strictly standard dotless variants too? Note that if dotless variants conflate different titles, then the ISO-4 abbreviation should include a qualifying element anyway, so this is not an issue; quote from the standard: Abbreviated titles are considered identical when they are composed of the same letters or characters irrespective of diacritics or other punctuation. Identical abbreviated titles should be distinguished by adding a qualifying element in parentheses. Tokenzero (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The quote is from a section on what to do when an ISO 4 code (with dots) can be used for two different journals with similar titles. My question is what to do when the titles are so similar (such as those given in the examples I've shown above that come from the category page) that the dotless version might apply to two different journals. Which journal would the dotless redirect target? or would we make that dotless version a two-dabs disambiguation page?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Per the standard (as quoted by Tokenzero above), neither dotted, nor dotless versions will ever apply to two different journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The quote is from paragraph 4.9, "Distinction and clarification". In this case the standard shows specifically what to do when an ISO 4 code must be used for two or more different journal titles. Identical abbreviated titles should be distinguished by adding a qualifying element in parentheses. Examples:
Titles: 
                 Expérience et innovations en éducation
                 Experiencias e innovaciones en educacion
                 Experiments and innovations in education
Abbreviated titles:
                 Exp. innov. éduc. (Ed. fr.)
                 Exp. innov. educ. (Ed. esp.)
                 Exp. innov. educ. (Engl. ed.)
 Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: you're supporting the claim "dotted versions will (never) apply to two different journals" but previously you were asserting the same for dotless versions. Wumbolo (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, Wumbolo.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  07:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: I'm not sure I understand your question. If there were journals with names Cellular Biochemistry and Cell Biochemistry, their abbreviations would be considered identical abbreviated titles (w.r.t. ¶4.9), because they have the same letters [...] irrespective of [...] punctuation. So the only strictly correct ISO-4 abbrvs would be abbrvs (for either journal) with parentheses. I believe there should be a disambiguation page, like Ann. Phys., unless there's a clear primary topic and a hatnote would suffice, like Open Med. (apply WP:TWODABS here). The disambiguation page does not get an rcat anyway. The page Ann. Phys. (Berl.) should of course be categorized as an ISO-4 redirect, and Headbomb claims it would be comfortable to have it in a maintenance category together with Ann Phys (Berl) (whatever we call that category). Finally Ann Phys should of course redirect to the disambuig page or the primary topic page, and I'm not sure if it's more comfortable for editors to consider it in a category separately or together with all dotless ISO-4 redirects. Exactly the same applies to Cell vs Cell.. Tokenzero (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I see your points and agree.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  07:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Italian titles and ISO 4[edit]

Is there a guide to handling Italian titles? The English equivalents for Ricerche di Pedagogia e Didattica are abbreviated, but no dice in the LTWA czar 21:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If you disable english only in my tool (warning, it's slow, hangs for at least a few seconds; the link) it finds ric., pedagog. and didàtt.. I'm working on making it faster and giving all the abbreviation, instead of just the table. Tokenzero (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The most authoritative source for journals and periodicals in Italy is http://acnp.unibo.it/ which provides "RPD" as alternative title. --Nemo 15:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
This is about ISO 4 abbreviations specifically. Other abbreviations may be used (and be more common) than ISO ones. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Apparent discrepancy on ISO abbrev[edit]

I just created Knowledge-Based Systems (journal), and was confused about what the ISO abbreviation for its title is. The automated tool that now is linked to at the top of new articles says it should be Knowledge-Based Syst. (I guess), but the NLM catalog entry says it should be Knowl. Based Syst. Which one is right? Everymorning (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The tool doesn't handle hyphenated very well. Remove the hyphen, you get Knowl. Based Syst., so the ISO 4 abbreviation is Knowl.-Based Syst. (You preserve hyphens in ISO 4.) The un-hyphenated versions should be created and marked with {{R from abbreviation}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Centre for the Mind[edit]

This Wikipedia article, Centre for the Mind does not qualify for notability based on news sources - see Google News. Then I noticed on its web page it claims scientific accomplishments and works published in academic journals [5]. There are a number of hits on Google Scholar, but only one with the exact nomenclature [6].

There are some works authored by the center's founder, Professor Allan Snyder. I don't know whether to credit these toward "Centre for the Mind". Then there are these specific journal articles, [7], [8], [9] and [10]. Then there is this page on their website which lists a bunch of journal articles [11].

I have no idea how to gauge this for the notability of this topic. Maybe some editors here can take a look at this and tell me what you think. It looks they have been publishing since 1997 [12]. Any thoughts would be appreciated. I also posted on DGG's talk page (see diff here). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Should we create ISO 4 redirects to pages that are both on an organization and the journal it maintains? So, for example, if Random Organization X maintained Journal of Random Statistics, but only Random Organization X has a page, should I redirect the ISO 4 name of their journal to the page about Random Organization X? If so, should I tag it with ISO 4 category? Thanks! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

RfD for Foobar (Journal) redirects[edit]

See above discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal[edit]

Hi, I'd like to suggest a page about WikiJournal of Medicine. I'm involved in the project, so to minimise any COI in writing a Wikipedia article about it, I thought I'd post about it here. I think it is sufficiently notable to warrant a stub/start article.
Mentioned in academic literature:

Mentioned in general press:

Would anyone be interested in putting something together? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Doubled ISO 4 template[edit]

In looking at IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, there are two identical stacked ISO 4 template warnings, but I don't see anything in the article source that would cause that. It looks like a bug. I tried to fix the abbreviation, but I apparently didn't get it right. In the wild, the journal is abbreviated as IEEE Trans. on Professional Communication. --Mark viking (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mark viking: You got to create the redirects too. The links for that are provided in the templates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Ah, I see--the purpose is to encourage us to create redirects. I thought it was complaining that the abbreviation didn't exist in some sort of ISO 4 database. It would be more clear for the template to say "The redirect <abbrev redlink> does not exist. Create the redirect and purge this page to make this template go away." I also see that the templates were not identical--one had periods after the abbreviated words and one did not. Thanks for your help! --Mark viking (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)