I am on an extended wikibreak and will be much less online than usual (if at all). If you need an admin, please go to WP:AN. If you came here because I speedily deleted an article, please see WP:REFUND first. If you have questions/problems concerning academic journals, Headbomb is very knowledgeable on this subject and always very helpful. Thanks.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Before posting here, please READ THIS FIRST

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, please add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab, or, depending on your settings, the "new section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. I dislike talk-back templates and fragmented discussions. If I post on your page you may assume that I will watch it for a response. If you post here I will assume the same (and that you lost interest if you stop following the discussion).

START A NEW TALK TOPIC.

Ancient TL

Hey Randykitty. Posting this on your talk page to avoid cluttering the deletion discussion even more. This is intended to be friendly and definitely not confrontational. I'm curious what your vision for how Wikipedia covers journals is. If we applied your standard – that it needs to have third-party articles that are exclusively about the journal – hundreds (probably thousands) of articles would have to be deleted. In my field (materials science / electrochemistry), almost none of the major journals have this type of coverage. To name just a few: Journal of the Electrochemical Society (that journal was actually cited several times in the 2019 Nobel Prize announcement), Journal of Power Sources, the Journal of Materials Chemistry series (A, B and C). And I would guess this is the case for most fields outside of the major general-interest journals. I imagine it's not deliberate, but you're setting forth an extremely restrictive vision of Wikipedia. Is this really how you see the project? Tserton (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I already explained some of this at the AfD. It is WP policy that articles have to be about notable subjects, which has to be documented by reliable sources independent of the subject. This has led to the adoption of the WP:GNG guideline. As you say above, precious few journals are the subject of in-depth articles. That's where NJournals comes in, which basically argues that indexing in a selective database constitue a source and makes a journal meet GNG. NJournals was devised to make it easier for journals to be included. Note that this is controversial (see the talk page of NJournals and its archives). If there is no indexing, a journal fails NJournals and has to meet GNG, which is actually harder. There is a significant number of editors who think NJournals should be shelved and that only journals meeting GNG should have an article. Without sources, we cannot write an article (your or my opinions are not acceptable sources). Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IIT Delhi

Hi @Randykitty: This article was moved to this title per consensus on a Move Request in October 2020. I have reverted your move. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 07:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I looked for previous moves but didn't see any, probably didn't look enough. That discussion is a bit weird for such a move, with only 1 participant besides the nom. If you look at MIT, for example, you'll see that it redirects to Massachusetts Institute of Technology, even though nearly everybody the world over just refers to it as MIT. Similarly,, we use California Institute of Technology, not Caltech. We normally use the full name as article title, not an initialism or abbreviation that may be well-known in one country, but not in the rest of the world (see also WP:UCRN). Anyway, I don't feel strong about this either way so I'll let it be. Happy editing. --Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree that this RM wasn't nicely closed and it could've been given more time, but I might disagree on other parts. Anyways, let's keep it as it is, as it doesn't apply on Indian Institute of Technology. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 09:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Randykitty. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, Macrobreed2 (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! --Randykitty (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]