Talk:List of entomology journals

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 July 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Insects Mid‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Academic Journals

	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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Untitled

This list was proposed for deletion with the following reasoning:

"Useless list of links to largely non-existent articles. Not a single external link. Article has been in existence for over two years but still has almost no usable content - it's impossible to learn anything from it or use it for further research."

I disagree with this proposed deletion. To deal with the concerns above:

"Useless list of links to largely non-existent articles."

Not quite sure why it's "useless" ... or any more useless than similar lists elsewhere in Wikipedia. The fact that the articles don't (yet) exist shouldn't be a reason to delete the list, it should instead be a reason to create those articles, where they are appropriate. If some entries do not deserve an article, then they should be trimmed from the list.

"Not a single external link."

I don't understand this reason. Why does the list need external links?

"Article has been in existence for over two years but still has almost no usable content"

What usable content you would expect a list like this to contain that it does not contain? Addition of that info would be an alternative to deletion, but we need to know what you have in mind.

"It's impossible to learn anything from it or use it for further research."

To say something is impossible requires an enormously high standard of proof ... is that really what you meant to say?

SP-KP 18:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

Is the country indicated the country of publication or the country covered. I cannot decide where to add Oriental Insects [1], Tropical Lepidoptera [2] etc. The list of additions is really huge. I think it should be reclassified with columns giving subject scope (applied, systematics, genetics etc.), region scope and taxa scope. Shyamal 04:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - scope info would help Goldfinger820 05:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on journal list names

There is an RfC regarding the standardization of journal lists names. Please comment at Talk:List of journals#RFC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

This list needs extensive cleanup and editing. It does not make much sense to class journals by country. This leads to absurdities such as journals on African entomology being classed under Belgium. In addition, there are no clear inclusion criteria. At this point, it looks like any entomology journal would fit into this list, notable or not. This has led to the inclusion of an enormous number of redlinks, most of which I suspect will never be developed into full articles (or even stubs). The "references", with very few (if any) exceptions, are just external links to the journals' homepages. this just establishes that the journal exists, at best. --Crusio (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have re-ordered the list by title, which was one of your points, but the question of inclusion criteria needs to be dealt with. I propose to remove all red-linked titles which have no incoming links beyond this list. This isn't quite the same as notability, but it's a lot easier to measure. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I hesitate to disagree with an editor of Stemonitis' calibre & experience, I feel uncomfortable with such a large deletion of material, which doesn't seem to be in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, and I think we should discuss this a bit more. As a temporary measure I've created Talk:List of entomology journals/List of unloved entomology journals to hold the deleted items. There are some in here, as Stemonitis surmises above, that would easily meet the notability criteria, it's just that no-one has got round to writing an article about them yet (e.g. Antenna, J.BENHS). Personally, I would be happy that a list of verifiably-real verifiably-entomological journals is encyclopaedic content, but I appreciate that others may have a different view. We don't have to redlink the ones which don't have articles - we could just include them as unlinked entries. SP-KP (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Stemonitis has done an excellent job. It's a good idea to save the redlinks elsewhere, as a kind of guide for articles to create. However, including them here makes it way too easy to insert all kinds of journals, many of which will not now (or ever) be notable. If the redlinks on the saved list turn blue, they can easily be copied into the main list. --Crusio (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was being deliberately bold, in the knowledge that we can always revert to an earlier version if needs be. I would not argue that titles which have for the moment been removed can never be replaced, but there do need to be some limits on what can be included. A number of journals of rather limited interest and import had made it on to the list, and I picked a simple criterion for choosing which to keep. I would welcome more articles on entomological journals (and sci. journals in general), and additions to this list. I think we all understand that this is a work in progress. I also agree that it's as well to keep the old redlinks somewhere so that they can be reinserted as necessary. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of the British Dragonfly Society dubious tags

BDS was only formed in 1983, so a start date for the journal of 1885 is going to be wrong. Also, the ISSN search doesn't return anything - do we have a source that says that this is definitely the correct ISSN? SP-KP (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. I Googled a title listed in the journal's index under volume 1, issue 1, and "Notes on finding larvae of Somatochlora arctica (Zetterstedt) in NW Scotland" is usually cited as "Butler (1983)", which matches the society's age perfectly. The ISSN is the one given by JournalSeek, so I have removed the {{dubious}} tag there, too, just in the absence of any evidence that it's not right. Confirmation from a printed copy would still be useful. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken a look at the Oct 2010 copy and can't find an ISSN printed anywhere in it. I think that one of the conditions of having an ISSN is that you have to print it in every issue, so either it's not got one, or it has, and the editors have forgotten it. SP-KP (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. I can also find no such criterion on the ISSN website, but I imagine there is a lot more to the whole process than is covered by their FAQ page. I would still prefer to keep the ISSN for JBDS, but I won't revert anyone who feels strongly enough to remove it. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we should keep it, but tag it somehow. The Dubious tag is too strong though, I wonder if there is another tag that says something like "verification needed" ? SP-KP (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{verify source}} --Stemonitis (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of entomology journals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of entomology journals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISSN link templates

So, I just learned today that the Template:ISSN link template exists. It looks like this list could benefit from it for a few reasons: no "ISSN" appearing before every single link and wasting table space, it supports adding online ISSNs, it will automatically insert a line break for said online ISSNs and will automatically show "(print)" and "(web)" after the two ISSNs (if there are two, that is). Any objections to using this template here instead of Template:ISSN? (Though if nobody responds here, I might go to one of the project pages instead) Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]