| Revision as of 15:04, 4 March 2015 editPhilafrenzy (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users240,551 edits →American Studies (journal): comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:15, 4 March 2015 edit undoZigzig20s (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers192,464 edits →American Studies (journal): ping, to make sure they see itNext edit → | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
| :::]: OK, that's what I was wondering. My suggestion re: librarians is that they may know of specific ways to show that this journal is notable. They may know the ] for example?] (]) 18:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | :::]: OK, that's what I was wondering. My suggestion re: librarians is that they may know of specific ways to show that this journal is notable. They may know the ] for example?] (]) 18:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I have access to every journal ranking possible. This journal is not in any Thomson Reuters database (the major closed ranking service), nor in any open ranking that I can find. --] (]) 19:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | ::::I have access to every journal ranking possible. This journal is not in any Thomson Reuters database (the major closed ranking service), nor in any open ranking that I can find. --] (]) 19:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::It's (delayed) open access. Is that the reason why it is not indexed? I assume that you have to pay to be indexed and they may have chosen not to do that. I note that with its predecessor it has been published since 1959. Surely the number of times it has been cited (there must be thousands one would think) would meet the criteria for general notability? ] (]) 15:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | :::]: It's (delayed) open access. Is that the reason why it is not indexed? I assume that you have to pay to be indexed and they may have chosen not to do that. I note that with its predecessor it has been published since 1959. Surely the number of times it has been cited (there must be thousands one would think) would meet the criteria for general notability? ] (]) 15:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:15, 4 March 2015
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zigzig20s. |
 Archives | |||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Buildings in Beverly Hills
Hi, I got everything on the Pictures Wanted list except Trousdale Estates and the Mayor. Friars Club was Demolished and none of the 3 Bernini stores were on Rodeo Drive - they are all something else. I'll post the photos sometime next week. Glenn Francis (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
If you can find out where a Trousdale Estates sign is, I'll get a pic of it 162.72.22.252 (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Got Your Church and Trousdale 162.72.22.252 (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I've uploaded all the photos for your articles except Temple Emanuel. Thx. Glenn Francis (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll get the Peninsula Beverly Hills, Temple Emanuel, and the Mayor on Monday. Glenn Francis (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Temple Beth Am and Emanuel are uploaded. Didn't attend the Walk because it was raining. thx Glenn Francis (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Robert Rosen book
i loved it. I have an elderly friend in the Spartanburg Jewish congregation who knows him!
Theo Müller
Another one for DYK, if you'd like to contribute. The Interview in Der Spiegel is quite amusing. Edwardx (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Malcolm Orme Little
I think this is the correct guy who won the International Polo Cup in 1886, Malcolm Orme Little so I will make the new article about his son. The article on Malcolm Orme Little doesn't mention polo, what do you think? I will add the reference to his article but only if you agree they are the same person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- I added it, review it and see if I am correct. If not undo it. That would be one more name from the trophy list solved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Achille Boitel
 | On 27 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Achille Boitel, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that French Nazi-collaborator and art dealer Achille Boitel sold Woman with a Carnation by Lucas Cranach the Elder to Hermann Göring? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Achille Boitel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Precious
project assessment
Thank you for quality biographies such as Sigi Ziering, achieved in collaboration as in Achille Boitel, for project assessments, for the mantra "created referenced stub" and Sunshine on a Rainy Day, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
American Studies (journal)
The problem with this article is that it obviously does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. JSTOR is not a selective database in the sense of NJournals. A notability tag is justified, so that editors are aware that evidence of notability is needed. I haven't been able to find any, others perhaps can. Note that American Studies International was indexed in Scopus, but Scopus now lists it as inactive and doesn't index American Studies. That's unexpected and may actually indicate a problem with this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Randykitty: I don't know what you want precisely. It's also on Project MUSE apparently. I have heard about the journal from reading the endnotes of countless academic books. Do you want a citation count? I am not sure where to find that.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- The only reason I have not yet taken this to AfD is that I think it might be notable. But I cannot find any evidence for that. JSTOR and MUSE is fine, but it doesn't show notability. Have a look at NJournals to see what is needed. Meanwhile, I think it would be unfair compared to other journal articles if we didn't tag this for notability, as most journals with this problem are tagged for notability (not all, I guess, but if not, they should be). --Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Randykitty: It seems obscurantist to tag widely read/cited academic journals for notability.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Who says it's widely read and cited? We have to go by reliable sources. As soon as those are found (either in the form of sources discussing the journal or in the form of inclusion in a really selective database), the tag can go. Until then, it should stay. --Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Randykitty: Have a look in the footnotes of books from your local academic library. I am not sure how else to convince you. Meanwhile, television programs have uncontested Misplaced Pages pages...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's original research... And, yes, you're right, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (how about all those permastubs on tons of obscure sportspeople), but that's not a reason to drop all our criteria. There's millions of articles here on WP, nobody can contest all that need contesting and so I will have to leave television programs to those people that are interested in editing those articles. --Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Randykitty: Do you think contacting a library to ask them how we could prove it is a widely cited/significant journal would work? If you're based in the US, you could simply ask a librarian. They might know.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Librarians are generally not "WP-literate", I don't think that would be very helpful. However, I have edited literally thousands of journal articles (and quite some experience as editor, board member, etc) and have a pretty good idea where to find sources (see a collection of links on my user page, for example). --Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Randykitty: Do you think contacting a library to ask them how we could prove it is a widely cited/significant journal would work? If you're based in the US, you could simply ask a librarian. They might know.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's original research... And, yes, you're right, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (how about all those permastubs on tons of obscure sportspeople), but that's not a reason to drop all our criteria. There's millions of articles here on WP, nobody can contest all that need contesting and so I will have to leave television programs to those people that are interested in editing those articles. --Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Randykitty: Have a look in the footnotes of books from your local academic library. I am not sure how else to convince you. Meanwhile, television programs have uncontested Misplaced Pages pages...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Who says it's widely read and cited? We have to go by reliable sources. As soon as those are found (either in the form of sources discussing the journal or in the form of inclusion in a really selective database), the tag can go. Until then, it should stay. --Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Randykitty: It seems obscurantist to tag widely read/cited academic journals for notability.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- The only reason I have not yet taken this to AfD is that I think it might be notable. But I cannot find any evidence for that. JSTOR and MUSE is fine, but it doesn't show notability. Have a look at NJournals to see what is needed. Meanwhile, I think it would be unfair compared to other journal articles if we didn't tag this for notability, as most journals with this problem are tagged for notability (not all, I guess, but if not, they should be). --Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Randykitty: Do you work for a competing publisher?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- It is not my habit to give out personal information. Suffice to say that I have not even the slightest imaginable COI in this case. --Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Randykitty: OK, that's what I was wondering. My suggestion re: librarians is that they may know of specific ways to show that this journal is notable. They may know the journal ranking for example?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have access to every journal ranking possible. This journal is not in any Thomson Reuters database (the major closed ranking service), nor in any open ranking that I can find. --Randykitty (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- ]: It's (delayed) open access. Is that the reason why it is not indexed? I assume that you have to pay to be indexed and they may have chosen not to do that. I note that with its predecessor it has been published since 1959. Surely the number of times it has been cited (there must be thousands one would think) would meet the criteria for general notability? Philafrenzy (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Randykitty: OK, that's what I was wondering. My suggestion re: librarians is that they may know of specific ways to show that this journal is notable. They may know the journal ranking for example?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- It is not my habit to give out personal information. Suffice to say that I have not even the slightest imaginable COI in this case. --Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)