Talk:Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

If you have access to this resource, or if you need to verify a citation from this reference, check out WikiProject Resource Exchange.Resource ExchangeWikipedia:WikiProject Resource ExchangeTemplate:WikiProject Resource ExchangeResource Exchange articles

History of Science Mid‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Royal Society Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royal Society, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Royal Society 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.Royal SocietyWikipedia:WikiProject Royal SocietyTemplate:WikiProject Royal SocietyRoyal Society articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 6, 2015 and March 6, 2017.

Original Research[edit]

There seems to be various original research claims in here, such as references to letters in the Royal Society archives. These ought really to be references to secondary scholarship. What's going on? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.116.106 (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

"... printed in the English-speaking world, and was only three months shy of being the oldest [scientific journal] in the world."

The oldest being? —wwoods 21:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Journal des sçavans apparently. Carcharoth 10:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not true. Journal des Scavans was not a science journal! It was a general journal with some science in it. This is extensively documented PointOfPresence (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:RSTB 362 1479 thumbnail.jpg[edit]

Image:RSTB 362 1479 thumbnail.jpg 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 (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing relevant information[edit]

There is nothing wrong with the current wording, and things like the journal being the longest running science publication need to be mentioned. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intention to expand this article[edit]

This article is listed as an 'Anniversary article' on Wikimedia UK here: https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Anniversary_articles (for 6 March 2015). As declared in my sig, I do have a COI, but intend to expand this article in the coming months. While I will make every effort (again as per my COI) to observe rules on neutral point of view, verifiability and reliable sources, it would be great for others to edit/add/improve as they see fit. (Sjanusz|talk)(COI) 07:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also state that I am working on improvements to the article in my userspace at User:Sjanusz/PT (Sjanusz|talk)(COI) 21:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I will move over a few sections from the draft in my userspace, before possibly closing it (Sjanusz|talk)(COI) 04:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/paste?[edit]

I just did some cleanup, mostly bringing the layout in line with WP:MOS. However, some of the line breaks in the middle of sentences give the impression that (part of) this text may be copy/pasted from somewhere else. Anybody knows whether this is the case? --Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noticed that. The dubious material was mostly added in January, by Anna M. Gielas, and appears to come from this document. The document has a Creative Commons licence, and the text hasn't been slavishly cut and pasted, but has been used selectively, so it just about scrapes under the wire of WP:COPYVIO; but in my opinion it could certainly do with a bit more paraphrasing and abridgement. GrindtXX (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm The license is "the text in this work is licensed under the creative commons attribution-non commercial-noDerivs 2.0 UK" and this is a derivative work. So I don't this works. It of course needs attributing, and can be quoted, or rephrased as any source. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]