Talk:List of mathematics journals

RfC on journal list names

There is an RfC regarding the standardization of journal lists names. Please comment at Talk:Lists of journals#RFC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of red links

I undid a large removal of red linked items. The scope of the article seems very well defined, and just being a red link is not a problem on its own. If there are concerns that certain journals don't really exist, that's a different thing, but it seems like the removal was based on the argument that the list shouldn't have red links. I disagree with that.

I also removed the "cleanup" tag - the article seems very clean. I suppose we could move every one of the external links into its own footnote; I see each one as a reference that the journal actually exists, etc. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing this list could use is some actual annotation on the list. I added a few annotations as a demo of the sort of info that could be included. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: redirect the red links here

One role that lists can have is to serve as a place for topics that would not be notable on their own – like cartoon characters and minor journals. For example, there are currently two articles besides this list that have redlinks to Topology and its Applications. Rather than creating a stub for every journal, we can make that redlink come here, where people can get the journal's web page and a little description of the journal.

I propose making all the red links on this article link to this page. For the ones that are notable to have their own articles, someone can always replace the redirect with an article later. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I left a pointer to this page at WT:JOURNALS. Hans Adler 21:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't like that idea. The list contains barely any information about these journals, so the redirect serves little purpose, and many will think "ah the link is blue, so i don't need to create it" upon seing a bluelink in an article. I'd rather have the redlinks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether most of these could stand as an independent article. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Logic and Analysis. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that one is redirected to its publisher, which is usually standard practice / the best thing to do. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying it would be standard practice to redirect all the Springer journals here to the Springer page? They don't seem to be listed there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, I knew the Springer counterexample was gonna come up. In that case no, as Springer is a megapublisher, and there's no relevant information on the journal you're redirecting there. Journal of Logic and Analysis is published by the Association for Symbolic Logic, and there's a strong connection between the publisher and the journal in that case. Likewise for journals like Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society and London Mathematical Society or SIAM Review and Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. So basically non-notable journals should redirect to the publisher, unless it's one of the big ones (John Wiley, Springer, Blackwell, ...). I'm not a big fan of systematically creating redirects though, since that cuts the main mechanism for article creation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing I don't understand is why we would want to keep links to non-notable journals red to encourage article creation, when we know that the journal isn't notable and an article shouldn't be created? — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion I have misgivings about creating redirects for the red-linked articles back to this page. Redirects are not for arbitrarily linking acceptable topics, or non-notable topics, to any arbitrary point on Wikipedia. Also, especially, redirecting topics back to this page, which is devoid of any information pertaining to these topics, does not make sense. It would most likely confuse the general reader. Furthermore, the red-linked articles are used for maintenance within the various WikiProjects and Wikipedia itself. Lists are generated which are for the specific purpose of listing topics that need coverage within the WikiProjects and Wikipedia. These are under "Topics needed" sections and pages. In addition, creating redirects for a cosmetic color change from red to blue appears to be trivial. Finally, creating such redirects to a page devoid of any relevant information regarding these topics appears to be very much off topic. There may be guidelines and policies regarding this matter. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• It is standard practice to redirect journals that are not quite notable to the publisher page. Similarly with journals that are going to be notable, but for which the articles have not yet been written. True, the advantage or red-links is that people see the article needs to be written--but they have no way of distinguishing whether it needs to be written, or it should not be written. With most browsers , a redirect link shows up differently from a link to an article, so people seeing them on a list will realize/ (at least people used to Wikipedia will, and for those who are simply readers and don't catch the difference, the redirect will go to whatever information there is.

What I am not sure about is whether to have redlinks or listings for journals that are absolutely not notable in the least. I can see the merits either way (there's a similar argument in university libraries, whether to enter all available open-access journals in the catalog, whether or not the library would subscribe to them if it cost money--most libraries do not do so, on the principle that it sends unsophisticated students the wrong message about their usefulness; a few do, on the principle that at least it gives some information, & the library is not to judge.) But certainly in any borderline case a redirect is appropriate.

There a topics where we stringently insist that nothing should be entered on a list unless it's notable , either having an article or clearly worth it. I don't know whether that should apply here. I can argue both ways. (In some cases, such as lists of notable alumni, I think it makes very good sense to exclude the non-notble). DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability is the other issue. It appears that notability for this list of journals (and potential articles) has not been determined. From this list, I have linked two journals published by Springer, with impact factor, and listing in acceptable databases: Acta Mathematicae Applicatae Sinica, English Series and Acta Mathematica Hungarica. I am guessing that notability will have to be determined on a case by case basis. --- Steve Quinn (talk)

• I very strongly feel that in this kind of list articles all redlinks should be deleted and all external links should be removed. I can see that some people would find it useful to have a directory of all existing journals in a given field, with weblinks to their homepages, but this is exactly what Wikipedia is supposed not to be (see WP:NOT and more specifically WP:NOTADIRECTORY). As it is, this list is a just a spam magnet: there are no clear inclusion criteria. Normally, I don't think anything is wrong with a redlink: it shows us which articles still need to be created and redirecting them, if eventually they'll have an article, is not a good idea (1/ you don't see anymore which articles need creating and 2/ once an article has been created it is not always that easy to find all those redirects, which now redirect to the wrong target). In the current case, I think the redlinks are a bad idea. I don't think we should include any journal that ever existed (again, that violates NOTADIRECTORY). Determining in a list which journals are notable is very tough. Much simpler then to only list those articles for which we are reasonably certain that they are notable: i.e. those that are bluelinked. The redlinks could be copied to a page in project space (WPJournals or WP Mathematics) so that we know which articles need creation. To come back to all the external links in the article, they are not only a violation of NOTADIRECTORY, but also of WP:LINKFARM. An EL to a journal's homepage is appropriate in the article on the journal itself, but not in an undiscriminate list like here (neither in a discriminative list, in fact). --Crusio (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• I have not always thought so, but I now think that Crusio is correct. All redlinks should be moved elsewhere, to either the talk page or a project page. The external links should be removed as they are quickly reached by going to the journal article. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There are indeed clear inclusion criteria, described in the lede: currently publishing journals in mathematics. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• To stand behind a list of non-notable journal articles, and attempt to pass this off as acceptable, represents (in part) a lack of concern for the goals and values of Wikipedia. I apologize for being asleep at the wheel. Several editors have pointed out that non-notable journal titles do not belong on Wikipedia. Even DGG pointed this out. As Crusio pointed out this list contradicts guidelines or policies. It also contradicts established conventions. Not only is there no clear inclusion criteria, as per WP:GNG, there is no inclusion criteria at all (neither clear nor otherwise). Hence, this contradicts a core policy of Wikipedia, i.e. WP:GNG. Apparently I misread the first comment of User:CBM, as they rationalized restoring appropriately removed red links. Even in a project space those that are non-notable have no value on Wikipedia. Hence, these could not have value in a project space. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• It is perfectly reasonable to have a list in project space or on talk pages of scientific journals that do not have a wikipedia article, but may or may not be notable enough to have an article. That is what project space is for, to help wikipedia expand. It is however clear that redlinks on these lists should be deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Silly that I didn't see the obvious: yes, I agree, the talk page of these list articles should be the place to have the redlinks, that way, any editor visiting the talk can immediately see if any have turned blue and should be moved to the main list. --Crusio (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• What if we simple removed the links and italicized the names instead? It seems like you are conflating several issues: whether to include items in a list, and whether to have red links for them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I generally think there are two many unencyclopedic lists on Wikipedia, but the idea that lists may only contain entries notable enough to have an article is extremist and not founded in policy. Notability of all entries is usually required in certain specific situations such as:

• When an exhaustive list is not feasible and editors do not agree on another inclusion criterion.
• When a list is sufficiently contentious so that editors fight for inclusion/exclusion of specific entries, based on whether they are sufficiently important for the list.

This list is not contentious at all, and the number of mathematics journals is sufficiently small so that we can easily give a complete list.

If there is a problem, then it is not in what this list contains but in the fact that it is currently a disguised web directory. This can easily be remedied by reformatting the "(web)" links as inline references that prove existence of a journal and adding a one-sentence description for each. Hans Adler 10:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was somewhat silly – it makes everyone perform an extra click to the footnote before clicking on the journal web page. However, I will implement it for just one section, so people can talk about it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Demo without redlinks

There are two issues: which items to include, and which items to link. The discussion above is conflating them, although I started it as a proposal about how to handle the color of the links.

Another option, for those who don't like redlinks, would be to remove the links. I made a demonstration in section "T" of here. I also switch the external links to references there, in case people want to see what that looks like.

Personally, I think it makes more sense to either leave the links red, or turn them blue by redirecting the articles somewhere. But the point here is that the content of the list is not related to the color of links. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Concerning redlinks: I feel that redlinks are clearer than redirects to pages that for a general reader may not be immediately connected to the article (like the publishers). Concerning the proposal to reformat all external links as references, that's cute, but doesn't remove the underlying problem: you just move the linkfarm down. Having a list of all mathematics journals will just continue to make list like this spam-magnets. Most of us know the obscure publishers that pop up all over the web and are starting open-access journals, hoping to make a fast buck. They often seed WP with external links to their journals. I think this is clearly an example of what WP is not and that we should not facilitate this practice by making lists that are completely non-discriminating. As regards the latter, I don't regard limiting the list only to journals about mathematics to be "discriminating". --Crusio (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, limiting the list to only journals that have a WP article is far too discriminating. Do you have some intermediate level? I would support limiting it to journals that are indexed by at least one of Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH. Those are the primary journal indices used by mathematicians, and between them the coverage of quality mathematical journals is quite complete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Journals listed in either one of those would indeed clearly be notable and, in principle, I would not have a problem including them in this list (on the contrary, eventually they should have an article and be on this list, absolutely). However, a practical point then is that maintaining the list would then become a lot of work. Each addition by an IP or new (possibly SPA) editor would have to be checked for coverage by MR or ZMATH. I would rather that that energy were spent on creating articles on the missing journals and complete the list gradually. Listing the redlinks on the talk and restricting the list article itself to bluelinks would be a pragmatic solution and accomplish all we need, I feel. (It would also solve the EL problem, because an EL to a journal's homepage should definitely be part of any journal article and so would not be necessary here any more - per WP:EL). Also, maintaining just this one list might not be too much of a problem, but there is quite a number of lists of journals and maintaining them all would be an absolute pain, if not completely impossible. Limiting these lists to bluelinks makes the task very easy and rapid. --Crusio (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I doesn't seem to be true that every journal they index is WP:NOTABLE. For example, Journal of Logic and Analysis is reviewd cover-to-cover in both MathSciNet and Zentrallblatt – meaning every article they publish gets a review in both indexing services. But the journal had an AFD in December that did not keep the article. Similarly, Topology and its applications is reviewed cover-to-cover in both indexes, but it does not have an article, and I am not sure that it would pass the GNG as a standalone article. Same for Journal of K-Theory. I could make those into blue-linked stubs today, but I don't know that they would remain. But they should be listed on this list even if they don't deserve a standalone article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• That the Journal of Logic and Analysis is indeed included in those indexes was unfortunately not brought up in that AfD. I would not have taken it to AfD had I known that or withdrawn the nom if that had been brought up during the AfD (note that the nom specifically says "apparently not indexed anywhere"). Inclusion in these indexes satisfies WP:NJournals, which (although not an accepted guideline) is what I tend to go by. I'll support a re-creation of that article based on this new information. Very few journals pas GNG, which is why several editors at the WPJournals project support WP:NJournals. So I think they deserve a stand alone article and can be bluelinked. I'm not sure about the procedure to "undelete" JoLaA (although it only has been redirected, but that was the conclusion of the AfD), but DGG could advise us about that. --Crusio (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• If it were possible to create these as blue links, then I wouldn't mind moving the remaining red links to the talk page. I could create stub articles relatively quickly for the journals that are indexed, if that's actually permitted. I was under the impression that the standards were particularly high for creating an article on a journal, which is why I didn't participate in the AFD when it came up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think the above is an acceptable compromise. In other words, if a journal satisfies WP:NJournals then I agree that it belongs on the main-space page list. Then it may be best to move the others to the article talk page. But, I don't see the purpose of listing these on the article's talk page. They don't meet the inclusion standards of WP:NJournals, and are most likely not destined to become articles on Wikipedia. That means these are being given some weight, and this seems to be an unconventional way to give non-notable journals some notice on Wikipedia. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If this turns out to be the way we go, I'll just need a few days to work through the list creating articles for journals that are listed there and are in the math indexes. After that, we can delete the red links and we shouldn't need to move them to the talk page.

I think the main issue here was that I knew all along that many of these were quality journals (e.g. indexed) but I wasn't aware of this notability guideline. Other people were aware of the notability guideline but didn't realize that many of the journals are indexed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

AustMS journal rankings

User:Crusio expressed some concern on my talk page about the Australian Mathematical Society ratings that I added this morning. Here are my thoughts about them:

• The source is the Australian Mathematical Society, which is on its face a reliable source about mathematical topics like this.
• The information is likely to be of interest to a reader, who will probably ask what the top-tier journals in mathematics are. In this case, we are fortunate that we can actually find a source to give an answer. If the material was not in a source, we couldn't just make up a ranking based on our personal opinion.
• The info here is a relatively short excerpt of their overall rankings (83 of 1200 journals). I believe it is short enough to alleviate copyright concerns.

Since the goal of Wikipedia is to provide reliably sourced information that is of interest to our readers, and I believe this material meets those goals, I added it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that these rankings are relevant to Wikipedia. I am guessing other societies, or organizations also rank journals according to their standards. I don't see this as part of the criteria for determing a journal's notability on Wikipedia per WP:NJournals. Also, it may be a case of undue weight WP:WEIGHT - by giving preference to one organization's rating over another, without consensus. It may even be construed as being in contradiction to WP:NPOV. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any other national mathematical society who has a similar quality assessment of mathematics journals. Of course there might be, and if the article had too many that would be a different matter. But as it stands there is only one I know of. The rankings have nothing to do with determining notability per NJournals, but they are likely to be of interest to a reader, which is what makes them relevant to Wikipedia. I don't see any NPOV issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Here, too, I also think of the implications of this for other lists articles. If we put this info in this list, somebody else will come and put it in a humanities journals list. Difficult to argue against if you do it here. But if you include the Aussie list, then why keep out the French and the European lists? And perhaps the Swiss have a list, too? And Liechtenstein. And so on. I have no problem with the article on the list itself. Nor with linking this article to that one in the see also section (although that already starts becoming tenuous). But splitting out part of the list (as far as I know, the Australians did no publish different lists per field, but only a complete list of all journals, from theology to mathematics), I think that goes too far. --Crusio (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you link to one of the putative other rankings of mathematics journals? The Australian Mathematics Society only ranked mathematics journals, I am not referencing the national compendium that the AustMS sent their list to. You can double check where the references lead. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Crusio voiced the same view as myself pertaining to the AustMS rankings. I assumed it was clear that these rankings are as subjective as any other society. For this section to remain, it would be necessary to show that the AustMS is some kind of ultimate authority on math-journal articles,. Showing that other societies do rank a certain way, or don't rank a certain way is not relevant to this issue. This kind of stuff might be appropriate for an article on AustMS, but probably not appropriate in this article. As far as I can tell it amounts to synthesis. Sources are needed which are explicitly in agreement with some sort of ultimate authority atatus. And I use "ultimate authority" as an example - hopefully you see what I am saying. In any case, this is something that you unilaterly decided to add to the article, based on your opinion. Reliabls sources are needed to back up your assertions. It is not up to me to back up your assertions. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Clearly the Australian Mathematical Society is a reliable source for information about mathematics. No other examples of such ratings have been presented; it's a relatively unique opportunity to have a source that does provide such a ranking. For the purposes of Wikipedia, this is a perfectly reliable source, and there's no reason not to use it. There is no synthesis in simply reporting what a source says. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• With all due respect - you don't seem to understand the point. The point is that reliable sources are needed which state that the Australian Mathematical Society rankings are commonly accepted throughout the mathematics community - perhaps even internationally. Then, I am guessing this assertion will have to be vetted for notability standards on Wikipedia - it all depends. Another way of saying this is - no, I am sorry, it is not clear that the Australian Mathematical Society is a reliable source. Reliable sources are needed to show that this is a reliable source.

These are facts which may seem apparent to you, but it is not apparent to the general reader, and it is not apparent to other Wikipedia editors whose focus is other than mathematics. The best method may be to take into consideration the fact that these articles are aimed at a general audience, as well as the mathematics community. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't need sources to say that our sources as OK. "Notability" is a question about the article itself, not about individual sources within the article. The Australian Mathematics Society, a national mathematics society, is prima facie a reliable source about mathematics.

Anyone reading a list of mathematics journals is likely to ask which ones are the best rated. As far as I know the AustMS rating are the only ratings of that sort that have been created - they are an on-topic, reliable source for the question "which journals are the best".

I also think that, if the concern is that this list is too much like a directory, the only way to handle that is to add some material like these ratings. That additional material adds value to the list. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• There is a section in this article entitled "Australian Mathematical Society ranking" This means that "Australian Mathematical Society ranking" is now part of this article. It is part of the article's topic and is no longer just a source. This also means that if it is challenged (which it is) then reliable sources are needed to back up the assertion that The Australian Mathematics Society, is prima facie a reliable source about mathematics. Reliable sources are needed which actually state this fact or something similar.

This pertains to WP:VERIFY - "To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source"... "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

break: is the Australian Mathematical Society a reliable source?

A section title does not require separate notability. The topic of this article is simply "list of mathematics journals". Moreover, the material in the article is verifiable, to the Australian Mathematical Society, and the explicit source is provided.

Are you actually arguing that the Australian Mathematical Society is not a reliable source about journals in mathematics? — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS - secondary sources are needed that says this is a reliable source. Also, the website of the Australian Mathematical Society is being used to cite the Australian Mathematical Society - which appears to contradict guidelines and policies. Please read WP:RS, and then please read WP:V. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• (unindent) I find myself a bit in between Steve and Carl. I have no problem with accepting the Aussies as a reliable source, it's a serious learned society after all. However, I do think tha the ratings don't belong here. I could live with remarks being inserted in the journal articles ("the journal was rated XYZ by the Australian Mathematical Society"), but think that it is too much too insert it here. The reasons are as follows. To start, I don't think the importance of this list should be overrated. I don't mean this denigrating, but Australia is not that big a country (in terms of population, obviously :-) and as far as I know not s mathematical superpower. For the moment, theirs is the only national list that I am aware of, but with the bean counters taking over science more and more, this kind of lists may proliferate and other countries may start their own (hardly anybody is going to say "hey, the Aussies did a good job, we'll just adopt their list", 19th-century national sentiments -if not national governments- will make sure of that). Are we then going to include all these national lists? In other words, what is the overall importance of this list outside of the direct Australian context? Further, this list is excessively long. Because the Australians (very sensibly, in my opinion) didn't make their list too fine-grained, the number of A+ journals is quite large. There is no way to make a sensible selection from among the A+ journals, like it can be done with the IF, which is a numerical value, allowing us to list the top 5 (or 10, anything more is, again, exaggerated, I think). I think I mentioned it before: in the Humanities (and perhaps also the Social Sciences - no time to check that right now) the European Science foundation has made a similar list to the Australian one for math journals. So has the French AERES (for those able to read French, see fr:AERES#Le classement des revues. Perhaps there are others. Are we going to list all of those ratings in the respective journal lists? I think that would be overrating the importance of these lists. Listing the highest IF journals makes sense: this is a ranking that is (albeit sometimes grudgingly) accepted almost everywhere. Listing a national ranking, however, does not make sense in my eyes. IMHO... --Crusio (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see why it would be a problem to include other well-sourced rating in other lists of journals, but that seems besides the point for this list. Similarly, the fact that other things might be created in the future doesn't change the fact that right now this is the only professionally-created journal ranking for mathematics that I am aware of.
• The reader can decide if she thinks Australia is not an important enough country. 83 entries is not very long. What would help is to annotate the lists to include more information about each journal, like the field. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• There are other organizations that rank math journals. Here is one from Oklahoma State University [1], ERA of the Australian Research Council [2], explanation of their rating system [3], University of Pittsburg [4], University of Wisconsin [5], Not sure [6], SJR & SCOPUS [7], SJR & SCOPUS (different one) [8] SJR & SCOPUS "Discrete mathematics" [9].

• The ERA ranking are derived directly from the AustMS ones. The Oklahoma state ones are just impact factor. The Pittsburgh ones are "Citation Indices". The final three are just Scopus. None of these is especially similar to the AustMS rating; above it was claimed that lots of mathematics societies would have similar ratings, which as far as I can tell is false. It does seem like we could add some excerpt from the SCOPUS ratings to the list as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• It also helps if you realize that a page with a ~ right after the first / is generally a personal web page, not "official" any more than my Wikipedia user page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Here is another one from Thomson Reuters [10]. Here is Red Jasper [11].

Regarding citation indices - these are a viable method of determining the standing of a journal. Impact factor is another method. It seems to me that the standing of the journal is the defining factor.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Those two are, literally, already cited in the article. The "impact factor" lists you pointed out in your previous post use the same criterion as the Thomson one. Thomson are also the people who run Journal Citation Reports. It does look like we could add the SCOPUS ratings as well, although it's worth making sure we get the ones that cover general mathematics journals. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Australian mathematical society is clearly a reliable source that does not need to be backed by other sources to be included here. The entire subject of such journal rankings is controversial, and many people think they should be banished altogether. Perhaps they have a point. In the meantime, such rankings are being widely used, and documenting their existence at wiki does not imply an endorsement by wiki. If some credible sources in the literature express concern about the objectivity of the Australian ranking (as compared, say, with the ISI Thompson one), then we could legitimately raise the issue of deleting it. Tkuvho (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

New proposal: create articles for indexed journals

Based on the discussion above, it seems like journals that are indexed by Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH might meet the notability requirement to create a stub. That was good news to me, I was unaware. If it's true, we could just create pages for the journals here that are indexed, and then remove the few that are left.

The main reason I am cautious about this is that there are a lot of journals that are redlinks here that are actually indexed. For example, here is data on just some of the journals here, which I was able to verify from Mathscinet with a script: [12]. The ISSN and frequency info there are taken from MathSciNet - and all of those journals are indexed cover-to-cover. So we are talking about creating a couple hundred articles, probably, by the time we go through all the red links here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. There might be a few exceptions, a.k.a. journals that are notable for reasons outside of WP:Notability (academic journals), but it's a good first step. You might want to check Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide if you are planning on creating a lot of them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I propose that CBM please stop creating stubs and redirects, at this point. I have several reasons. First, notability will have to be determined for each stub created because I am not sure that being listed in only two indexing databases is a sufficient rationale for creating more than 100 stubs. A smaller issue is things like incorrect links for the home pages of these journals. I noticed this before the stubs were started, when only web sites were being verified. Now as a stub, a current example is "Advances in Mathematics". The current link in the infobox is this url, [13], when actually the home page is this url, [14]. I came across a number of other such cases. If it were only one or two cases then it would be no problem. But if we are talking about 25, 50, or 100 articles where corrections such as this need to be made, then it becomes a burden. The third reason I am proposing that CBM stop at this point is, because there may be other errors that need to be fixed. If it were only ten journals articles, then I am sure other editors can get to it. But again if we are talking of 25, 50, or 100 then it becomes a burden - it places stress on the available editors.

Therefore I propose the User:CBM work as an editor on WikiProject Academic Journals for a period of time, and perhaps confer with the other active editors there, before proceeding. These journals are not going anywhere. Going it alone like John Wayne in the movies, while attempting to write over 100 stubs, may not be the most effective approach. I wish I could give a prescribed method, but I can't. I suppose that have I learned by conferring with other editors, and accepting feedback when it came my way. I have imitated other editors in how to structure Academic Journal articles, but the writing is my own. All that is needed is investing some time in the project to see how it goes. Well, I hope this makes sense. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A complete halt may not be warranted, just a temporary half so a few rectification can happen. First is that all of {{infobox journal}} should be copied. This makes it far easier for others to fill in what is missing (OCLC, history, frequency, etc...). Second is rectifying the homepage link (|website=http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622779/description#description) vs the online access links (|link1=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00018708 + |link1-name=Online access).

We might also want to create a {{math-journal-stub}}, rather than use two ({{math-stub}} and {{sci-journal-stub}}). The talk pages should also be tagged with {{WP Journals|class=stub}} and {{Maths rating|class=stub}}. Once we have cleared these up, CBM will probably be able to create a "perfect stub", as detailed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree that a {{math-journal-stub}} would be more effective than having to place two or more stub templates in each article. BTW, if anyone is interested, I just copy edited the Journal of the American Mathematical Society, including an infobox and an abstracting and indexing section. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course I still have to add references - it was a quick job. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Steve and Headbomb. A special stub template is a good idea, too. As for the Australian list, for humanities and social sciences I know that the French national research evaluation agency fr:AERES has made a ranking, as has been done by a European organisation, too (ERIH). There may be others. Including all these rankings in the different journal lists would be cumbersome and of doubtful value. Its is different with the top 10 IFs, because like it or not, the IF is a generally accepted measure. I'm not saying that the Australian ratings cannot be verified or are not a reliable source, I just don't think they are that important. --Crusio (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"being listed in only two indexing databases" – Is this a *&#F$%ing joke??? These are the only two indexing databases that any mathematician ever uses, unless some university administration forces them to use another one for purely administrative purposes. Hans Adler 08:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hans, WP:AGF/WP:CIVIL. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Although it would have been vastly preferable if Hans had voiced his comment in the spirit of the above civil and collegial discussion, I agree that indexing in these two foremost math databases would establish notability, as they are both selective and the foremost databases in the domain (hence satisfying WP:NJournals). Steve is correct, though, that NJournals is only and essay (not a guideline) and that listing in databases does not satisfy GNG. So creating these stubs might lead to challenges. In addition, Steve is absolutely correct about first checking facts before creating these stubs. Nobody knows how many stubs we have out there that contain incorrect info and have never been checked yet. No need to add to that backlog...--Crusio (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Headbomb, I would not have reacted in this way if, instead of asking one of those admins and bot operators who quietly keep the encyclopedia running to spend an apprenticeship period at a minor project, Steve Quinn had decided to work as an editor on WikiProject Mathematics for a period of time, and perhaps confer with the other active editors there, before making inappropriate comments here. Hans Adler 11:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, right. "I think he said something stupid so I am allowed to yell obscenities a him". Great argument, Hans! --Crusio (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• It wasn't just one stupid sentence. It was two full paragraphs of attacks and insults, with very little if any foundation. Anyone posting in that way is fair game for a response that jumps on their own display of ignorance. Can we please all be constructive now? Hans Adler 12:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Steve's request is perfectly reasonable. We're talking of the systematic creation of a large number of articles. We already have plenty of journal articles in dire need of cleanup, we don't want to add another 200 (or whatever the number is) of them to that list when they could be written adequatly in the first place. CBM's status as an admin/bot op makes him more special than the rest of us by an ammount of exactly diddly squat when it comes to content creation. There's no need to be offended on CBM's behalf, I'm sure he's quite capable of being offended for himself if he feels a need for it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• It would be out of character for CBM to feel offended, or at least to show it. But I am furious now, because I now feel guilty for Steve Quinn's display of senseless assumptions of bad faith or incompetence. It appears that I caused this nonsense by posting on the Journal Project talk page. I thought of that project as a comparatively civilised one, not as a pack of wolves. Hans Adler 12:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• A pack of wolves! Absolutely! They're capable of fearsome feats of furry fervor committed against innocent outsiders who post civil messages like "Is this a *&#F$%ing joke???" with edit summaries like "WTF". Right. Glad we got that straightened out. Now can we get back to work on the issues at hand here, please? --Crusio (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Let's. I think the first thing to talk about is the question of notability. I feel like I'm getting mixed messages about which journals should have an independent article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• (unindent) There's no easy solution to the mixed messages: there is no good consensus on notability for journals. If you have a look at the talk page of WP:NJournals, which is a failed proposal for a guideline (and therefore just an "essay"), you'll see that about half of the discussants thought it was too selective and did not let enough journals through, whereas the other half thought it was too lenient and let too many non-notable journals through. Having said this, in the past few AfDs for journals, all (I think) that satisfied NJournals were kept and a few were also kept despite not reaching that bar. I think that any editor taking a math journal indexed in ZMATH and MR to AfD would have a hard time getting it deleted. --Crusio (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

split

I have intentionally not made any large-scale creations to give us all time to discuss things. I have created a few stubs for journals listed in the "top-ranked" section of this list. I picked these to create because they are among the most prestigious journals in the field, and certainly pass any notability test. Before I do anything not by hand, I am planning to get a lot more feedback, both from the journals project and the math project. But I have been creating a few articles completely by hand to see how to format things, to see what information I can gather, etc... I plan to create articles for the red links in the "top-ranked" section in the next few days.

There are, as Hans Adler says, two main indexes for math articles: Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH. I cannot speak for other people, but I consider a journal to be professional when it is indexed in these. When people solicit papers for conference proceedings, they often advertise the fact that their proceedings will get indexed in these indexes, because authors do not want to publish papers that will not be indexed in them.

Just to summarize, here is the situation I ran into on this page: I saw that a lot of journals were removed from this list, many of which I know to be quality journals, because they were red linked. I am trying to resolve that situation. There are several options that would be OK with me:

1. Just leave the red links as they are, so people can create articles over time
2. Create articles for the journals that meet the notability requirements, so that the links turn blue
3. Redirect the red links to some master article, as is done with lists of cartoon characters (e.g. List of Pokémon)

I don't really have any preference between these. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I would strike out your third alternative. There is nothing to be gained by turning a red-link blue only to find no useful information at the other end of the link. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course the point would be to put the useful information at the end of the link... — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I also like the third alternative less, even if there is useful info at the end of that link: if a journal is not notable, I don't think it should be included on the list anyway and if it is notable, a redlink will show us which articles still need creating. I still am worried about a list of redlinks becoming a spammagnet... The second option is by far the best, of course (creating needed content), but a huge undertaking. And remember that we're talking only about this particular list here, but there's a whole load of these lists within the WP Journals project... --Crusio (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind spending my own time working on this particular list. Other lists will have to be handled by other people.

My point of view is that I don't really care whether a journal like Topology and its Applications is "notable" to have an independent article. Either way that journal and others like it are perfectly qualified to be on a list of mathematics journals, and our article would be incomplete if we leave journals like them off the list.

If the compromise is that we need to create articles on those journals to include them, I'm willing to put in the effort necessary to make that happen. I'm not in a hurry, but I'd like to be able to make some progress by the end of the month. What I have started doing is gathering data about journals, and editing a few stubs. Once I have a "pattern" for a new stub article that most people are happy with, it shouldn't be too difficult to go through and fill in the appropriate information into that "pattern" for various journals. Of course I am only thinking of the journals that are actually worth creating an article for.

I made another article by hand today, Topology and its Applications. I took into account Steve Quinn's preference to that particular web page as the "homepage" for the journal. Are there other improvements that could be made there? — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I made a comment relevant to this in the previous section. Are you looking for more feedback? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw you had mentioned a math-journal-stub template. I am fine with that, but I didn't want to create it too quickly to avoid stepping on any toes. Should it populate both the science journal stubs category and the math stubs category? I think the stub sorting people are touchy about creating new stub categories.

You're right that my goal is to find a "perfect stub" that I can use as a pattern. Crusio edited Topology and its Applications after me, and I can look at what he did to see what information to try to include in future ones.

In general, more feedback is better, because that's the only way for me to tell what people actually care about. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at {{physics-journal-stub}}, it populates only Category:Physics journal stubs. Anyway I'll go create {{math-journal-stub}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I hear what is being said about the status of Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH as selective indexing services. However, there are other factors that determine whether or not a journal is acceptable for inclusion - not just these two indexing services. The point is these are most likely only a first indicator of notability - which is great compared to other types of information that is no indicator of notability. I am not knocking the services, I am only saying I don't see these as the whole enchilada.

Moreover, once again, User:CBM admits to confusion about understanding acceptable inclusion criteria (i.e. notability). There is nothing wrong with that when working in unfamiliar territory. I had to feel my way around for awhile until I figured out how to do this. WikiProject Academic Journals has its standards, just like any other project. That is why I am saying, the most effective course of action is for User:CBM to work on the project for awhile before proceeding - so that he may understand the ropes. An alternative is to create articles by hand for a period of time, until he feels comfortable with what he is doing. If there is urgency regarding this matter, then I don't understand it.

Also I don't agree with using automation to create 100 or 200 stubs or articles. User:CBM has stated "...before he does anything not by hand". I have misgivings about this. Personally, I have never viewed this project as one that needs to be automated. But that is beside the point. There is an element of creativity involved with creating these articles from scratch (any article). No one said anything about using a bot to create articles when this discussion started. It appears that I have been led to this point (I can't speak for others).

Finally, I feel the User:CBM is trying to rush us through this process (of vetting this list), in order to satisfy some time frame. For me this going to take the time it takes, however long that is. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not confused as much as I seem, I'm just polite. You're right that the journals project has standards: they seem to have settled on WP:NJournals , and the articles I have created easily pass that. You are the only person here who seems to be claiming that Acta Numerica and Topology and its Applications might fail the notability guidelines. So do you think that, or don't you?

I'm not trying to rush anyone else through anything. I'll take the blame: I should have already dealt with the long list of redlinks here. I happened to have the page on my watchlist but I had never really looked at it. So I'll own up to it and fix the problem now that Crusio has pointed it out. I'm not forcing anyone else to help, and you're welcome not to. I'm very capable of doing a professional job on wikipedia.

Crusio and Headbomb have already helped polish Topology and its Applications into a pretty good stub, and I appreciate their help. Do you have any concrete suggestions for material that should be included in that article but isn't? That's the sort of feedback that would be useful, rather than vague assertions about notability. I'm not in a hurry, but I am moving at a deliberate pace. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, you are correct the standards seem to have settled on WP:NJournals. Also, I am glad that Headbomb and Crusio have been assisting you - these are both very good editors to learn from. Although, I haven't really said anything about Topology and its Applications, I see that it is most likely a perfect stub. I responded on the talk page of Acta Numerica and I removed the tag from that article. I think this also is a good stub. Thanks for working on these. So, yes, you are getting the hang of it. Truthfully, I suppose that was part of my concern. I'll be glad to give feedback as I go along - but it seems that you are creating acceptable stubs right now. And I guess that is your goal at the moment, and I don't have a problem with that. If you see something pertaining to my editing that you like feel free to ask about it, or just imitate it. And moving on... ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Another try: JSL

Looking at the Topology and its Applications article, I created Journal of Symbolic Logic. One different thing about that journal is that they do not have a lead editor (they do have a coordinating editor, but that's quite different - for example his name is not at the top of the masthead, it's just alphabetical with all the other editors on the cover). This journal also is on JStor, so I added that link to the infobox.

If there is any more information that I should have included in the JSL article, please let me know (or edit the article, and I'll see it). I think that these stubs are getting much better thanks to the help from several other editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• This looks fine to me. It is a good stub. I also notice that you filled in the infobox. I think that is helpful. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Problems remain

The discussion here seems to have died down and nothing much is happening any more (except that redlinks keep being added, together with inappropriate external links). However, the problems that I originally addresses by removing redlinks/external links remain. --Crusio (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes (not that the external links are inappropriate - we need them for WP:V). I will work on creating several journal this morning. I think that we have a good template in Topology and its Applications that I can use as a pattern for creating other journal stubs - do you agree with that? I also don't want to drag out the fixing process any more than necessary, but I do want to make sure people can comment before I start creating lots of stubs. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• That stub seems fine to me. The ELs, however, ARE inappropriate. See WP:EL and what that says about linkfarms. I still think that the best way to go here would be to remove all ELs (they belong in the respective articles) and all redlinks (they can be saved elsewhere for reference, either here on this talk page or in projectspace). This way its going to be a long time before this list looks decent. --Crusio (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to work on creating the articles over time. This morning I created Acta Applicandae Mathematicae, Abhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der Universität Hamburg, and Acta Mathematica Sinica. I am planning to continue making these articles over time, but obviously it will take some time to finish them all. You're welcome to help if you want to, but I can do it by myself over time. Eventually I'll post a note asking if other people at the math project are interested in helping. I have a tool that can format the page if you type in all the appropriate information, at [15]. I am improving that tool based on feedback, and I want to go slowly to make sure that I do things as well as I can.

In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with redlinks per se if the topics are verifiable, and the links here are actually references that the journals exist. Lists are permitted to have redlinks. I still object to the idea of gutting the list simply because the articles on it haven't been created yet. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• That's a very nice tool, kudos! --Crusio (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Crusio, I am getting the impression that you are extremely nervous about the imminent deadline. Relax. Hans Adler 17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hans, don't be silly, of course I know there is no deadline. However, that's no reason to let this thing sit around for months. I spent quite some time cleaning up this list and was reverted for, what I feel are, insufficient reasons. The current page many things and exactly what Wikipedia is not supposed to be. As Carl says, lists are permitted to have redlinks. However, in the case of indiscriminate lists like this one, they degenerate into linkfarms and spammagnets. Deadline or not, that is not a situation that we should tolerate indefinitely. (Especially not if the problems were addressed to start with). --Crusio (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not an indiscriminate list, it is not a spam magnet, and if it were, the Maths project would be more than capable of dealing with it. You addressed what you think are problems by removing a large amount of sourced, relevant material. You have an idea of what the scope of this list should be. CBM has a different idea of what the scope should be. This must be discussed. You were bold and you have been reverted. See WP:BRD. If you get too irritable after being reverted, then BRD is not the right editing method for you and you should in the future propose all big changes on the talk page first. Some of the journals you removed are probably not notable. Some of them are definitely notable and should have an article. This needs a proper solution, not a quick surrender by CBM to make you keep your face. You can only lose it by being unreasonable, not by being reverted or taking part in an open-ended discussion about something you had previously made up your mind about. Hans Adler 19:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The solution to people adding inappropriate external links (i.e. spam) is to remove specific instances when you find them, not to arbitrarily remove all external links some of which are needed to create the redlinked articles. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The longer term solution is to create the articles on the journals that should have them, now that the wiki policy seems to permit it. I think that working on that will cause the other issues to go away as a side effect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hans Adler has remarked on his talk page that I am incorrect in asserting that this page violates WP:EL. However, the very first line of that guideline states "they should not normally be used in the body of an article." This list is replete with them, all through the body of the article. A little bit lower it says: " it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic". WP:NOT#LINK (also called WP:LINKFARM) says that WP is not "Mere collections of external links" (item #1). All these guidelines seem to be applicable to this particular list. As for lists themselves, Wikipedia:Lists#Navigation says that they "serve as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia", I don't see how redlinks contribute to that goal and it also strongly suggest (even if not explicitly stated) that lists should only contain items that can be wikilinked (i.e., are notable). Under Wikipedia:Lists#Lists and categories it is said that "Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of its entries", something it won't do if it consists of a huge collection of redlinks to start with. Under Wikipedia:Lists#Organization it says "Not-yet-sorted items may be included on the list's talk page while their categorization is determined", which rather covers what I have suggested for the redlinks in the current list. I don't normally engage in this detailed kind of wikilawyering, but as Hans Adler seemed to think that my arguments were just some kind of personal preference and that I am being unconstructive, as I "seem to be pretending, vaguelt pointing in that direction, that these documents support your position". I hope the foregoing clarifies my position. --Crusio (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The fact that the links are in the body is a red herring; they could all be moved to footnotes, and that particular issue would go away. It's just a question of form, which means that it's not really an issue of inclusion. This is not a "navigational list", it's just a list of mathematics journals. Eventually, I hope that it will be annotated to include the field of each journals, at least. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree. WP:LSC says, for example: '"Creation guide" lists—lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles—don't belong in the main namespace' and 'Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.' The list here consists of many redlinks accompanied by external links to homepages. Converting those into references would counter the argument that we should not have in-text ELs, but all they do is confirm that the journal exists, not that it is notable, which is required for establishing that "it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future". --Crusio (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:LSC also lists "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria." as a possible selection criterion for a list. In any case, I am going to create the articles, and then remove the external links, which should achieve exactly what you want: to remove the external links from this page. This is not a "creation guide" list, it is just a list of mathematics journals. Again, we could just unlink the articles, it's just a matter of form that they are linked. But they will be created soon, anyway, now that it's more clear that they pass the notability requirements. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yep, LSC says that, and in that case none of the entries will be wikilinked, of course. As it is now, it is a creation guide list. But you're right, if the articles get created, then all should be fine, as long as non-notable ones get removed from the list. You're also right that it would be nice to annotate these lists. As they are now, any journal list is just that, a large list of journal names. In some of the more general list, there are subdivisions according to fields, in others that is selective ("top 5 journals in a field") and often rather arbitrary, I have to say. I know that lists are an additional navigation aid to categories, but I'm not a big fan of them... --Crusio (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• First, I compliment CBM on his new software that creates stubs. I have tried it, and like it very much. I think it is already useful for Academic Journal articles in general, and I look forward to using this more often. Also, CBM, you seem to be successfully creating excellent stubs. Now for some other, perhaps less pleasant stuff...

After the arguments presented by Crusio, I agree that the red-links should be moved to the talk page, or a WikiProject Mathematics sub page until they become an article. I really don't understand the resistance to doing this. Even when this whole list becomes articles, I doubt that all these articles should be in this list. This is because the lists such as Chemistry journal articles, and Scientific journal articles are limited in some fashion. Apparently the Chemistry journal articles are the top 10, or 20 in notability. This list should probably have a goal of the most notable, or something along those lines.

It appears to me that the issues which have been noticed and communicated by Crusio are almost ignored or simply put aside.

One issue in particular, is the section entitled "Australian Mathematical Society ranking". It has already been pointed out that this appears to contradict WP:NPOV. Each society most likely has its own standards for inclusion in its list. So, again this issue is being ignored.

Another issue is - "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic". Wikipedia is not "Mere collections of external links". These guidelines appear to be applicable to this particular list. This is what I started to say in this response. How about, we stop dragging our feet. Also Wikipedia is not a directory - it is not necessary to include every math article in one single list. And that is what I see is one of the main goals here. Maybe I am wrong that this is one of the goals, and please correct me if it is not. A better goal would be the 20 or 25 most notable math articles.

In any case, I am going to remove the section heading "Australian Mathematical Society ranking" along with the brief description, per WP:NPOV. I will leave the links - but the list on this whole page needs to be pruned, and most of them moved to the talk page, or a Wiki-Math Project sub page.

If anyone wants to see examples of pruned lists see List of scientific journals in probability, List of scientific journals in statistics and List of scientific journals. In the List of scientific journals each discipline has a small number of journals listed. The example that these lists demonstrate is that they exist according to guidelines. This list does not appear to do so per guidelines stated above. Yes, problems still remain. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like to discuss the AustMS rankings, could you do it in the section "AustMS journal rankings" above? I gave my explanation there about why I don't think there are any issues. If you remove it, I will restore it, I'm sorry to say.

As the for external links, I think that once the articles have been created they can be removed. However, as I said, I don't agree with the idea of gutting the list before the articles have been created. Lists are also subject to WP:V - if there were no links, someone would complain that the list is unsourced. There are links, so the complaint is that there are too many links. The best solution, I think, is to remember that (1) nothing has to be perfect right away and (2) we should be able to create articles for most of these journals, which will make everyone happy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC

Also, I strongly disagree with the idea that even after the articles are created, they would not be listed there. This is, by definition, a list of mathematics journals -- not a list of just 25 mathematics journals. I just noticed this part of your post. Surely, if the articles exist we are fully justified in putting them in a list. The problem at the moment is with redlink, which I feel are OK as well, but others would prefer to see the articles created. You could help by creating some articles yourself... — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Final tweaks to pattern for stubs

Yesterday I created Archive for Mathematical Logic, Turkish Journal of Mathematics, and Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics

Today I created Groups, Geometry, and Dynamics; Homology, Homotopy and Applications; and Israel Journal of Mathematics.

As you can see from my contribs today, it takes about 10 minutes right now for me to look up all the necessary information for these. I am also tweaking my journal helper as I go. It seems to be working pretty well at the moment, and so I wrote instructions at the bottom to sketch the process needed to make these articles.

On reason I am very intentionally making only a few per day (beyond the time it takes) is that I want to give others a chance to look at the stubs and suggest changes. It's easier to fix the pattern now than it is to manually fix a hundred articles after they are all made. If the goal was just to create all the articles today, with minimal information, I could do that easily. I'm trying to make reasonable stubs instead, which takes more planning and time.

If there are any concrete suggestions for the wording of the stubs, please let me know soon. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Just one detail, I noticed with two of the last stubs the addition of a non-existing cat. Either the cat should not be added, or it should be created (but only if that particular publisher brings out more than one journal). Good job, I like your tool. Perhaps once this list is done, we can have another look at it and tweak it to be more general, so that it can also be used for other journals and be added as a standard feature to the guide for writing journal articles. --Crusio (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I kept those two categories because I knew the publishers each have multiple journals. I have been removing the red categories when I think that there will only be one. I created the two categories just now that were left as redlinks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So far today (2011-1-28) I have created Advances in Geometry, Numerische Mathematik, Operations Research (journal), and SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Also Chinese Annals of Mathematics - Series B and Differential Equations (journal). — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Astérisque, Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• And I have created Journal of the European Mathematical Society and I about to create Journal of Mathematical Biology. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I do have some suggestions for your article helper, or in other words -creating the stubs. First, the chief editors are not always notable, or have an article on Wikipedia. I reccomend not providing wiki links for this group.

Second, I reccomend a comma between peer reviewed, mathematics journal, published by Whatever publisher. For external links - in the Writing Guide it is reccomended that only the sponsoring societies have an external link, because there is already link to the homepage in the infobox. Don't get me wrong - this article helper is a great tool! It is ready for use for other journal disciplines - not just mathematics journals.

Also, I would like other editors to comment on my feedback. This is because, for instance, I think User:Headbomb does like to wiki-link the head editors. And he might have other preferences as well, which contradict my feedback. I am not the sole authority on these matters. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Here's a few comments: According to WP:PROF, the EIC of a notable academic journal is notable, so that justifies the wikilinks to editors (even though we have actually not often articles on them; I myself never add wikilinks or editors for this reason, but I am probably wrong doing that). As for the commas, I don't think a comma is needed between [[Peer review|peer-reviewed]] and [[mathematics journal]], whereas the one between the words "journal" and "published" is optional. However, rules on commas are a bit complicated in English, so I may be wrong here. Regarding the external links, I used to remove links to the journal's home page from the EL section. However, at some point DGG told me that these had to be there (sorry, I forgot the reason...), so since them I add them if they are not there... --Crusio (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WP:PROF is why I have been wikilinking these names. We need redlinks to tell which articles (or redirects) are missing. Usually, by the time someone gets to be editor in chief, they will also meet other aspects of WP:PROF, as well. But whoever goes to create the biography has to check to make sure and then document everything.

I don't think a comma belongs in "peer-reviewed mathematics journal"; I view "mathematics journal" as a compound noun and "peer-reviewed" as an adjective, so putting a comma between them is like putting a comma between "well-respected" and "vice president".

I have sen that you edited the sentence that starts "Founded in". I could change that sentence if you prefer a different phrasing. I was just trying to avoid starting so many sentences with "the journal" and "it". In some cases, I edit that sentence to include other information anyway, if the journal has a more interesting history. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer the word "established" for journals. I guess it's a somewhat subtle point, but I think that "founded" is more appropriate for an organization than for a journal. Not being a native-English speaker, I may be wrong about this, but to my "language sense" it just sounds better... :-) --Crusio (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Although it is a small detail, I prefer the word "established" as well. Also, I had not thought of "peer reviewed" as an adjective before. Interesting. I suppose it is. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Clean up 2011-02-01

I made a list of all journals that were either linked from this page or in Category:Mathematics journals. I sorted those and double checked the redlinks to make sure that they correspond to a journal that does have an impact factor. I removed redlinks to journals that had no impact factor, particularly those that are in the "C" ratings of the Australian Math Society (that combination says "not notable" to me). There were one or two unclear cases that I left and will figure out when I am creating stubs. I updated this page with the pruned list today.

I am still working on creating the articles for the redlinks here. It takes time to make good stubs, but I expect to be done by the end of the month. So, soon, all the redlinks here will be blue. Of course, if the goal is to get rid of the redlinks Right Away then I can just create microstubs for them. But it seems like it would be better to take the time to create better stubs even if it takes a little time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Carl, a month seems perfectly acceptable to me. --Crusio (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Carl, Headbomb is saying that he is removing links that are not going to make the cut. A month is an acceptable amount of time for the other journals. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I managed to create a few, but (as is too often the case) not as many as I hoped. I went ahead and removed the red links from the main list; the previous version of the page can be used to get a list of journal articles that could be created. I'll just add to this list over time as more articles are created. Originally I was concerned that the list would end up too gutted with all the red links removed, but enough have been created (and the lists of "important" journals added) that is seems OK now. — Carl (CBM · talk)

Merger of List of mathematics education journals into this list

I am suggesting that the mathematics education journal list be merged into this one, because it has only 6 good links which are repeated in this list. The sea of redlinks should be on the WikiProject's "articles requested page", not a mainspace list article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sounds like an excellent idea to me. --Crusio (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• I don't think it's a good idea. Journals concerned about mathematics education are journals of education/pedagogy a lot more than they are journal of mathematics. I think the lists stands fine on its own, although the sea of red is something that needs to be acted upon as some point. Maybe CBM and other maths editors can make use of his journal-creation too. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Then why does the first paragraph of WP:REDLINK say that: "rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, ..."? There could be a section on this list pg for the math ed journals, then the redlinks could/should be moved to a project page where requested articles are listed. Albeit, there are a lot of redlinked lists out there, but according to the WP editing guideline, it's not recommended. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• On second thought, I agree with Headbomb. Perhaps there is a list of education journals that this could go to. Once the redlinks would be removed, preciously few are left for a stand alone list. I'm guessing that most redlinks are non-notable journals, but I may be wrong there. --Crusio (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There is not a list of education journals, but maybe the math ed journals should be redirected to (and incorporated into) a section of the mathematics education article, since there are only 6 links? --Funandtrvl (talk • contribs) 17:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• I vote do not merge. Mathematics Education is a rich, independent discipline from Mathematics proper, and the two communities have different norms and standards for academic publications. [comment contributed by IP 216.220.114.135]
• Against a merge. I count seven good links at List of mathematics education journals. That's a reasonable number. Someone looking for an education journal to submit an article will find this page very useful. Tkuvho (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of mathematics 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150612143042/http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_2010/archive/era_journal_list.htm to http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_2010/archive/era_journal_list.htm

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) 08:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Australian Mathematical Society ranking

Should this section be deleted as it is out of date and no longer supported? --Bduke (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• I never thought it was worth including anyway... Many countries/societies will have their rankings and listing them all in the respective journal lists is probably WP:UNDUE. The same goes probably for the list of journals ranked by hugely outdated impact factors... And the "Red Jasper" list (I can't even easily figure out who/what Red Jasper is; Google points to journal-ranking.com but that doesn't mention Jasper...) --Randykitty (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• I deleted it on January 2. Nobody has objected. --Bduke (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)