This redirect 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
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
RFC: inclusion of long lists of journal and publisher names[edit]
As it currently stands, this (short) article contains two very long lists of names of journals and publishers. No reference is provided, although this presumably derives from the database, the Norwegian Scientific Index (NSI). I have not been able to find a source for these lists on the homepage of the NSI, but perhaps I missed it. However, if these lists are to be found on their website, a link to them would suffice and there is no need to repeat that information here. If there are indeed no lists on that website, then the lists here are apparently the result of (laborious) questioning of the database and as such would constitute original research. In both cases they are inappropriate for inclusion. A less-important but nonetheless practical consideration is that the NSI website indicates that classifications are revised yearly, meaning that this article would need a complete overhaul every year. Indeed, it currently is outdated. For example, it contains names of publishers that do not exist any more, such as Blackwell Publishing and Blackwell Verlag that ceased to exist as independent publishers back in 2007. I therefore propose to remove these lists. --Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It appears this is a valid list article of index of topic genre. Blue links do not need a source unless someone decide to add more info besides their linked name. Please make sure this article is appropriately categorized in Category:Indexes of topics or one of its subcategories. As for the red links, those which potentially will never have an article should be deleted but the rest should be left alone. That is how Wikipedia expands. (See: Wikipedia:Red link.) Publicizing this discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists in a valid course of action. As for expanding it, always remember: Wikipedia is not a directory. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it is correct to call this an "index of topic" genre. This is a (very local) classification of journals, with journals covering all kinds of topics. We can (and do) have lists on these subjects (see Category:Lists of academic journals). We do not, for example, list all journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports (although that is a list used over the whole world and very prestigious), nor do I think we should do that (it would just copy what the JCR already does itself). As for the sourcing, what is lacking here is a source for inclusion on this list. --Randykitty (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "very local", it is the official, national, Norwegian government classification of academic journals and publishers worldwide, and one of very few (the only?) such attempts internationally. The index is studied as a model by other countries. Journal Citation Reports is a private list, this is an official government index. Bjerrebæk (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Although your definition of the genre is very strict, Wikipedia's definition is not. This article lists journals and publishers of NSI. So it is an index of articles on NSI journals and publishers. That is the state for the time being. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Actually, I think you are under the impression that I said this article/list needs no work. That is not the case. All I was trying to establish is that even if this article is torn down a plain list of blue links to existing articles and renamed accordingly, it remains an index of topic. But as you explained below, it needs work, (a lot of work in fact,) only the number of possible courses of action is quite large; and it is not mine to decide. So, good luck. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I believe the point that Randykitty is trying to make (and in any event definitely the point I'm getting at) is that it's very likely not an appropriate topic to index; please see WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:CSC. Snow (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The healthy lead does give some context and miniscule encyclopedic value to this article as a whole but in the final analysis, I have to go with Randykitty on the lists; they simply have too much going against them. First off, the lists are publication/database lists, for which policy and well-established consensus have some firm rules -- in short, we do not replicate content lists, or at least rarely, and never just on the basis that it could be useful; it must also be of encyclopedic value and meet a number of other stringent standards. Second, more than a third of the entries on the lists are redlinks and have not yet passed their independent notability qualifications, and thus may be destined to stay redlinks. Last, as Rk points out, we must at least have up-to-date sources for the lists or their removal is supported by a pillar policy. Snow (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are many red links in the list is neither here nor there. A red link is not a Scarlet Letter; it is an indication that anyone equal to the task should be doing something about it. Even if the link never is connected, it indicates a concept that would be reasonable to link to in its own right; unlinking or alternatively altogether removing an item simply because someone does not like red or considers it a rebuke, would be irresponsible and frankly dishonest. You refer ominously to "a number of other stringent standards", but there are more standards than merely those referring to content lists, and here we have nothing better than your (plural) opinion as a basis for criticism. Hunting around for excuses to exclude content is not editing; it is wikilawyering. And as for verification, let's get some sense of proportion here: that pillar policy is not intended to mandate obsessive removal of anything and everything that some people might think needs a bit more verification. In this example, what is it you want? A full citation for each individual item in the list? What is it that is to be verified; the existence of the publication? Or would it be good enough for the list itself to be cited as a unit? In the latter case, don't you think it would be more constructive to add a "citation wanted" tag rather than threateningly brandishing pillar policies? JonRichfield (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're making quite a few presumptions about both the strength of my stance here and my priorities as an editor, friend. I'm simply responding to an RfC here and the purpose of an RfC is to gain clarification on general policy and community consensus as it applies to a specific scenario; I feel I've done that dutifully by providing information and links to the relevant policies. I'm by no means out to annihilate this page for beauracratic purposes. I simply noted that, if nothing else, any editor would be within their rights (and would be acting in a fashion that is consistent with perhaps our single most well-established policy) in removing the content in question until a valid source is found. I neither took this course of action myself nor even really urged it, I simply quoted the relevant policy. But, to answer your question all the same, yes I would say that an up-to-date source listing the current journals associated with the index would suffice to meet WP:Verifiability. However, as I noted above, there are several policies which still would seem to me to discount the list as appropriate content, most notably WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:CSC, both of which speak directly to situations like this. I've never argued that the article itself does not meet basic notability guidelines, only that a full listing of a database's constituents is exactly one of the kinds of replicated content from another source that is supposed to be avoided according to our guidelines on lists and what qualifies as encyclopedic content therein. You clearly have a different opinion and I invite other editors here to investigate the policies involved and come to their own conclusions, though I daresay the wording on the relevant policy pages is fairly unambiguous. Regardless, accusing me of wikilawyering when I did nothing but try to provide clarification on the matter and direct the pre-existing discussion towards the policies that reflect community consensus is not really helping anything. If you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, that's fine, please say so, but I don't see how or why you would assume I'm "hunting around for excuses to exclude content" and would appreciate it if you kept discussion to the policies at hand, not my motivation, especially in a case where I've expressed no particularly strident (or for that matter, uncommon) opinion. Snow (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Practically every article in Wikipedia, and this one in particular, needs work; while this is not much of a compliment, it is no serious criticism either. In terms of notability, the article is not exactly anything to set the world of the paparazzi aflame, but that is not the point of Wikipedia either; the article certainly does contain substantial information which might well be of functional interest to many readers; it holds little interest for me personally, but it is not trivial. No greater notability is necessary. Apart from the standard disclaimer that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, and therefore need not skimp on space, this article isn't even large, not even including the lists in question. Their size is in fact trivial, though personally I would have formatted them into three columns rather than two, to reduce scrolling. This is storm-in-teacup stuff; it does not affect the value of the article to the reader, it does not degrade the image of Wikipedia to anyone sampling it, and anyone uninterested doesn't even have to skip to the bottom. Objections to the tables are purely a matter of taste and a waste of other people's time. JonRichfield (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw no reason to remove them before and I see no reason to remove them now. The lists are helpful. Also, Blackwell Publishing is listed under that name in the database, so this page just reflects its contents, not whether it is "correct." Lots of material in Wikipedia articles needs yearly updates, and the material cited here isn't changed that frequently (it only concerns journals and publishers given an exceptional status). Bjerrebæk (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we do need a valid source confirming that these items are on the NSI, and to which level (the existence of which seems to be part of the basis for this RfC). If such a source can be identified, I don't see a problem with including that information here and updating as and when - we can always say "as of 21st Feb 2013..." or even "this list is not necessarily exhaustive..." Anaxial (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, I am in doubt whether that is strictly necessary, but I do agree that it would be a reasonable and helpful thing to do, and desirable at least, so why not? JonRichfield (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
