Talk:Trends (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.

Referencing

Some of the statements in the section on history could do with references. Espresso Addict 06:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Trends.gif

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 05:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions and redirects

I have just deleted as spam the whole series of articles on the individual journals which were quite obviously Elsevier spam. I will recreate them as redirects to this page. Pascal.Tesson 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree most of the previous subpages were created by Elsevier; however, it seems to be usual policy to allow articles for review journals of this type. What would your thoughts on recreation of a set of non-promotional stub pages? Several of the Trends journals have very high impact factors and, for categorising purposes, different pages would be useful, as they are all in different areas. Espresso Addict 08:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to reconstruct articles for every one o these journals. Elsevier may have written the original, but they are in their own right reach of them notable journals with independenet titles and independent impact factors--some very high. They meet every plausible condition for notability . DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

by our current guidelines on notability of journals, they would certainly each be notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]