Jump to content

User talk:Randykitty/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34

Feeling a bit of Wikihounding

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I just wanted to leave you a message in order to talk to you about some concerns that I have regarding some of your recent comments and responses towards me in some discussions, as well as behavior I'm perceiving as Wikihounding.

After our previous discussions, such as here where I felt you used uncivil language that was both taunting, condescending, and baiting, or here where during an active discussion, you declared consensus on a matter that had been open for discussion for less then 24 hours, dismissed all my questions/points, and then threatened filing a report when I reverted the edited material that was being discussed, I was a bit bummed out. Having a page I originated nominated for deletion (a series of publications), and two more distinct pages I originated edited heavily in rapid succession (one a biography, another on a geographic concept), makes me feel a bit more then bummed out, and like I'm being followed by you to cause distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. This is especially true on the biography page, as while you and others declared a broad consensus, I strongly disagree that one was achieved that addressed the nuance of Wikipedia's guidelines. I want to assume good faith that this is not your intent, but after the last message you left on the talk page directed at me, it is challenging. I've only been on Wikipedia for a bit over a year, but no one has so thoroughly checked a page I watch for link rot as you did, for example, nor made such extensive use of templates messages regarding various sources on a page. While I normally welcome this type of enthusiastic contribution from others, and really want the sanity check on my writing, it is a bit hard coming from you after the last few interactions.

As someone who believes in a structuralist approach to Wikipedia, I thought the approach I mentioned had strong merit, and the dismissal a bit rough. The conversation really shook my naivety that Wikipedia consensus is done using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense, and that an attempt to reach alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns would be made. This was particularly hard, as the discussion was on what I thought were relatively benign layout opinions, rather then content on a controversial issue. I was certainly not my best in response to the discussion on the page, but really felt that I was not being heard and my increasingly frustrated "textwalls" to add to my point were being ignored in favor of a few editors opinions. The more I've looked, the more support I find that some middle ground/compromise could have been reached there, but I feel like such discussions are an exercise in futility. While I try to be open to discussion, I don't believe many assumed good faith or took the time to actually address the repetitive text walls I tried to put some thought into with meaningful replies, resulting in repetitive discussions (I'm sorry to impose another such text wall here). I am still putting together my "Editing philosophy," and while it is probably different from yours (especially regarding "trivial stuff," as what constitutes trivial stuff is subject to point of view, and if something passes notability, what is a meaningless factoid to some might be an important bit of information to someone else), I don't believe there is a "right" answer. I still believe that people with different editing philosophies can compromise, but that faith is a bit shaken after this experience, especially as the editors involved had collectively more years on Wikipedia then I've been alive.

I wish you well, and I hope that you'll take this as an opportunity to self-evaluate how the way you respond and communicate with others may be perceived online. I hope that you'll do what you need to do in order to keep calm, remain civil, and keep discussions positive and focused toward our primary goal of building an encyclopedia. To keep good fait, I will assume you are not actively trying to cause me distress, or make me feel like I need to avoid voicing my dissenting opinions. I'll try to work on saying things with fewer words as well in the future.

Thank you for taking the time to read this message, for several of your edits that I believe were very productive on pages I originated, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but as I have told you elsewhere, posting huge walls of text is not very effective, so forgive me if I don't answer to every remark/accusation above. Anyway, I spent several hours today (which apparently is in "rapid succession") editing articles that, yes, you had started or edited. There's nothing out of the ordinary to look at somebody's edit history and then edit some articles that one finds in that way. I'm sorry that you think that is wikihounding. As for consensus, if 5 or 6 editors say "A" and you are the only one maintaining that "B" is the correct way to go, then the consensus is "A". I have been civil at all times and as far as I can see not disparaging or anything like that, unless you feel that disagreeing with you is uncivil. As for the message on your talk page, that is an automatic message generated by Twinkle, a tool used by tens of thousands WP editors. I had no influence on the text of that template (and there's an enormous consensus that that template is civil and NPOV. --Randykitty (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    In terms of being civil at all times, this following bit of text seemed to go beyond just disagreeing, and was not what I feel is civil:
  • If 5 or 6 editors say "A", and another points out policy, guidelines, and examples that say "B", and the 5 or 6 editors do not address "B", or try to come up with a compromise "C" (especially when "A or B" on a case by case basis is a perfectly valid option), then we have a poll with a sample of n=7 of editors, not a consensus. At least in my understanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work, maybe that is the old-fashioned Wikipedia that I wasn't here for. My "cherry picking some remarks" was an attempt at trying to build a compromise "C." It is frustrating when editors with 100,000 edits declare themselves correct, won't take the time to explain why they are declaring a consensus on all pages in all cases, and threaten me with WP:ANI for not immediately giving in to them on the issue they declared over in less then 24 hours of discussion. When that same editor goes through pages I originated and systematically applies this broad formatting "consensus" on them without a case by case discussion, "drive-by" tags multiple [dead link‍], [failed verification], and [better source needed] templates on an article, and then nominates a page for deletion. While the feedback is useful and meaningful under normal circumstances, waking up to an inbox full of them, a deletion notice, and other page edits from the user who sent me the above quoted text and a WP:ANI threat feels a bit like being hounded.
    While going through someone's edit history is not out of the ordinary, it was uncomfortable timing from my point of view after the previous dispute, and felt a bit like hounding.
    Again, I will assume you are not actively trying to cause me distress, or make me feel like I need to avoid voicing my dissenting opinions. I will try to say things in fewer words for your convenience. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Those were not "drive-by" tags. If a source doesn't support the statement that it is supposed to support, then that is a "failed verification" and the tag is needed to alert people that a better reference is needed. As for the "incivilities" that you notice above, those are absolutely normal statements. Anyway, this discussion is as fruitless as the one on the tables, so case closed. --Randykitty (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Administrator changes

added
removed
renamed Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

Hi Randykitty, I am writing to ask for your advice regarding "maintenance templates" in the "J. Alberto Aragon-Correa" article. I was his PhD student and started this article to recognize his strong international impact in the field of management (specially in sustainable management).

Could you please provide some details about the specific sections-sentences that you suggest to change in the article? Also, any advise about alternative writing? Even, any potential model in other similar-specific article to consider?

I will be happy to make the necessary changes, and I am just trying to understand better your view in order to remove the maintenance templates. Also happy if you prefer to make the changes by yourself.

Thank you for your advise. Best, Pacocasas997 (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

+ Maintenance templates

Hi @Randykitty,

I appreciate your work on the "J. Alberto Aragon-Correa" article. This project aims to describe the international social and academic impact of Professor Aragon-Correa in the field of management, and I am genuinely volunteering my time here. I'm pleased that various collaborators have contributed to enhance my original piece. I noticed that you have included two maintenance templates and I am reaching out for your guidance on resolving the identified issues.

Could you kindly identify the specific paragraphs or sentences requiring attention? Additionally, any specific suggestions for revisions would be highly appreciated. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, your insights are invaluable, and I'm committed to re-writing to meet your standards. Alternatively, of course, I'm open to your direct edits to remove the maintenance templates.

In my view, these specific templates could potentially compromise the credibility of the whole article. Therefore, I would like to develop a prompt resolution.

Thank you very much. Best wishes, Paco Pacocasas997 (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Hi, you should have a look at some of our better biographies ("good article", see here) to see what a good bio looks like. For example, constantly talking about "Alberto" is not very encyclopedic. You need to write in a neutral way. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you, @Randykitty!! Your suggestion regarding the implications of using "Alberto" is extremely helpful. I will cross-reference with the exemplary academic biographies for additional inspiration, this resource is also useful. If it is ok with you, I'll make the necessary changes in the next days and return to you for assessment before removing the neutrality template.
    Regarding the "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" template, could you kindly identify the specific sentences or paragraphs that may sound as "advertisement"? This guidance will greatly assist me in refining my future edits .
    Appreciate your support. Best regards, Paco Pacocasas997 (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

+ Ready and thank you note

Hi @Randykitty,

Following up with our previous interaction last week, I have included multiple changes in the last days to reinforce the encyclopedic tone of the "J Alberto Aragon Correa" article. I think that I am now ready to remove the maintenance templates in the next days. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you think that any extra changes are necessary at this stage. In any case, thank you very much for your help and previous orientation. Best, Paco Pacocasas997 (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I have notified you as required by the instructions below

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. बिनोद थारू (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:James Clerk Maxwell Medal and Prize

This has been created. Given your removal of the list and transformation of a similar article to a redirect, I thought you should be notified. It does have a few more references than what you deleted.Naraht (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Gregory Tague

I put the journal WikiProject page there because the article is the de facto article about Literary Veganism (which won't be notable) and ASEBL Journal (which is borderline, as it was archived in a few places, but I don't know if it ever had an impact factor). But I defer to you entirely if you don't think it belongs in the WikiProject! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Ah, I didn't realize that, I'll revert. If you make separate sections for the journals, you can use the infobox journals in those sections. --Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Great, thanks, will do. I'm digging for a bit more information about ASEBL Journal; it only seems to be cited in one place on Wikipedia, but perhaps in time it'll attract a few more mentions... Josh Milburn (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

IF

Hi, I got the impact factor from https://academic-accelerator. com/Impact-of-Journal/Journal-of-Commercial-Biotechnology. I admit I just took it at face value, it may be a useless site for such thing (in fact as I tried to save this, I see it's on a blacklist and so I added a space). But I was trying to figure out if it's a reasonable journal and it feels like it's not. But it's far too far from my academic area for me to have any personal insight. I just find that these comercial journals tend to be very poor. (I live in a land where most good things are IEEE or ACM publications or at least closely associated with them or some similar group). Again, I think you'll find that I'm very much in favor of having significant journals and conferences have Wikipedia articles. I just didn't see anything in the AfD or a web search for me to believe this is anything other than a profit center for someone. Hobit (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's not a reliable website. I don't know where they get their data, but the IFs they publish are different from those produced by Clarivate (the "official" provider of IFs). Looking at the citations in GScholar, I would expect this journal to get included in one of the Clarivate databases soon, but that's crystal-ball gazing, of course. As for the profit, a lot of articles in WP (and not just those on academic journals) are about subjects that generate profit for somebody, I don't really see a problem in that. More specifically talking about journals: unless and until a journal is included in some major databases, they are most likely to generate losses, not profits. And then when they do get listed, those losses have to be earned back. It's different of course for predatory journals, but their business model is very different. --Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Hobit: there's a reason the site is blacklisted... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    A) I hadn't realized it was blacklisted until I posted here. So I can buy the IF number is at the least not to be trusted. B) Lots of things here are for profit, but I'm not thrilled with giving a "lower-than-GNG" bar for business ventures--it feels too much like advertising at that point. I mean WP:CORP is stricter than the GNG for a reason. I wish we could find a bar that's reasonable for journals (and in my field, conferences). I do think it should be lower than the GNG (at least for the non-profit ones), but I'm not at all sure how to set it. I've seen WP:NJOURNAL and that gets me to believe that there isn't an easy bright line that folks can agree too. Hobit (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    Notability on Wikipedia is an artificial construct, divorced from any normal meaning of the word "notability", presenting an epistemic method of discovering whether it is possible to write an encyclopedia entry — an encyclopedia article. If it is possible, this conclusion is projected onto the subject of an article whereby the subject is declared to be "notable", and if it is not possible, the subject is declared "non-notable". It isn't that we write about notable subjects, it's that we write articles, and as long as we succeed in writing a legitimate article such that it complies with the core content policies, or have evidence that an article is WP:NPOSSIBLE because sources exist, or we should err on the side of assuming that they exist in the case that we haven't identified them (the SNGs, which are laxer then GNG [except for WP:NCORP, notably]), we a posteriori declare the subject to be notable.
    Evidence that an academic journal is indexed does not lead to a discovery that it is possible to write an encyclopedia article. This evidence can not lead to a conclusion that an academic journal is notable.
    This is because indexing doesn't have anything to do with significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, and proponents or NJOURNALS have argued that the okay journals that meet WP:JOURNALCRIT are less likely to be notable then the scandal ridden journals that do not, because coverage is the most likely when there is a scandal or a fraudulent publication is discovered.
    If we agree with that:
    NJOURNALS should be explicit and clear that it recommends against deleting articles about non-notable academic journals that meet certain criteria that are different from notability criteria, and then explain why this would be justified, meaning how Wikipedia's notability construct doesn't work in this area. It should not say that it's an essay about notability. It's an essay about not deleting certain pages, it could, in theory, be underpinned by:
    • Wikipedia:Five pillars: Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. — It is sometimes said that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and only an encyclopedia, but the first pillar doesn't say that exactly and what it says could have different implications; encyclopedias aren't exclusively made up of encyclopedia entries—in addition to those they might also have introductions, appendices, glossaries, other types of lists, etc.; therefore, while those mainspace pages about academic journals whose non-deletion NJOURNALS justifies only by being able to include a "who indexes it" overview may be seen as outside of the core of the encyclopedia, which is made up of encyclopedia articles, they could hypothetically be be tolerated as an acceptable side feature of an encyclopedia that complements articles. We have tags for certain, tolerated, types of non-article pages, such as {{surname}}.
      • So it could be an essay about the First pillar
    • Wikipedia:Deletion policy: ... pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia ... Reasons for deletion include ... Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth) — NJOURNALS recommends criteria for content that are independent from notability and asserts that these criteria for such content should be the relevant criteria, and that mainspace pages about academic journals that fail to meet the relevant notability guideline, and could perhaps not even be seen as encyclopedia articles, should not be deleted if they meet these parallel criteria.
      • So it could be an essay about the deletion policy.
    • Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Notability is perceived as a rule, but it is a "rule" that should sometimes be ignored entirely.
      • So it could be an essay about IAR.
    It just isn't an essay about notability in the sense of an SNG that never got the guideline stamp. It's an anti-notability essay.
    The path forward is making it clear that NJOURNALS-based arguments for non-deletion are contrary to notability, but are still relevant arguments that lead to a better encyclopedia with its "many features". The essay could do this, it could make this argument, but it doesn't. It falsely presents itself as a notability essay. That's why it's so strongly opposed, and I agree that this problematic and unclear essay should be opposed in this way, until it becomes a good essay that lucidly presents a viewpoint about how Wikipedia could benefit from such pages. —Alalch E. 01:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    "The path forward is making it clear that NJOURNALS-based arguments for non-deletion are contrary to notability"
    That is your opinion. It is not, however, the opinion people who consider WP:NJOURNALS an excellent baseline for journal notability. You will never be able to reconcile the two sides, you just have to accept they exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    It could be an excellent baseline for non-deletion of mainspace pages about journals, but not on grounds on notability. —Alalch E. 11:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    Again, in your opinion. Which is far from universal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  • "Notability on Wikipedia is an artificial construct, divorced from any normal meaning of the word "notability", presenting an epistemic method of discovering whether it is possible to write an encyclopedia entry — an encyclopedia article." I agree with the first clause, largely agree with the second and disagree with the third. I think that's how it started, but notability has become our litmus test for what we cover. And it's very much a moving target--the bar for notability has certainly changed over the years, even if most of the guidelines and policies have not. We could easily write an entire article, in much more detail, about all the original Pokémon, than we could on this particular journal. But we don't because of our inclusion guidelines combined with a common-sense approach to applying them. Folks feel that each of those Pokémon don't require an article (because they are entertainment, frivolous only of interest to fan-boys (and girls) or whatever). But we don't have them because we've reach the conclusion, for better or for worse, that they somehow aren't appropriate. Not that we can't write them. Should academic journals (and conferences, which are much more important in my field than journals) have a lower bar than WP:N? Maybe. But I'd personally not set the bar low enough to admit the journal discussed here. Maybe include things which have had an IF of at least 2 for 3 years (ever) or something (or that have non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources). People, including me, feel that we should cover "important" things. And what's important to me can be really different than what's important to you. So we use the media, writ large, to give us a baseline and then skew that a bit (e.g. sports has way more coverage than us mostly geeks think is justified so we choose to discount detailed coverage as "run-of-the-mill"). Sorry, there's my rant. It would be cool to hear what @Uncle G: has to say given I think he was quite active in getting notability to be our bar if I recall correctly. Hobit (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Everyone has their idea of what's important, and for everyone it's different. If we ran the encyclopaedia that way it would be chaos. There was a lot of discussion about this at the time of Project:fame and importance, including the infamous 'Jimbo's "no"' (q.v.). Essentially, we should try to ignore, as far as possible our own notions of importance, because an encyclopaedia is there in part for the proverbial species of beetle to be looked up in. So the question became what should we use as a discriminator instead of fame and importance. The only reasonably objective measure that succeeded, the one that (for instance) gets us the species of beetles because part of being a species is proper in-depth expert scientific literature being published and accepted, was the one that you're discussing, which I first wrote down as the Primary Notability Criterion; but which I think many people were coming to at the time given how well it immediately caught on once I started putting it into practice.

      The idea was that there were secondary notability criteria as well, in part because a lot of our haphazard and spotty subject-specific guidelines at the time had a lot of "All X are notable" criteria. It is interesting that gradually over the intervening 2 decades those have been eroded, and I see a lot of people nowadays opining that whilst the secondary criteria imply that something might be article-worthy, the fundamental test of whether it is is now whether there are multiple independent people who have checked their facts and documented it in-depth. The whole debate about sportspersons' biographies showed this shift in action. In 2004, the debate would have been what "all X are notable" rule to concoct. Nowadays, it's how well "all X are presumed notable" guides us to what actually is notable using the PNC.

      I cannot say much directly on point about Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 January 13 because I have not read either that or the AFD discussion preceding it. Although I do remember the days when Bulbasaur (AfD discussion) was a featured article. ☺

      In the end, I personally grit my teeth sometimes and try to strictly exclude any personal thoughts that I might have about how significant a particular topic really is, and follow where the world's documentation of subjects leads. Sometimes that leads to some amazing untapped veins where one wishes that more of the blanket notability people were devoting their efforts properly. c.f. User talk:Drmies/Archive 146#up the Creeks without an English professor. 91 books! Or the redlinked hydroelectric power system mentioned in the discussion of Farad, California (AfD discussion) which was expert-documented extensively a century ago. That may make User:Uncle G/Missing encyclopaedic articles yet. ☺

      Uncle G (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit war

Please take a look at this user's contributions who is edit warring in multiple pages even after warnings. A block might be necessary, thanks. Timovinga (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Journal of Commercial Biotechnology (again)

Would you mind taking a closer look at this journal. I'm starting to have grave doubts that it's not utterly bogus.

  1. The editor-in-chief is A) at a school of economics B) shares his name with an extremely famous economist who is now dead C) appears not to have a single publication from that school D) isn't listed as teaching at the school claimed.
  2. I can find no reference outside of this journal to the one random board person I selected (Kartik Rinke). I mean the name doesn't exist.
  3. The charge to publish is more than $1000. Does any legit journal charge that much these days?

Basically, I think it's likely completely bogus. It exists, but it seems quite possible it's just a scam. Without evidence otherwise I think we need to delete this. It's not impossible this is a real journal etc. But we really shouldn't be hosting a page for something where we really lack any independent in-depth coverage that at least gets over the "it isn't a scam" bar. And I'm not seeing it. Hobit (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  • For 1, I find tons of articles by a Yang at the University of Economics in Katowice, e.g. [1], [2], [3].
  • For 2, Kartik Rinke seems to be a really strange mistake, from "Kartik Totlani" and "Rinke J. van Tatenhove-Pel" of the University of Delft. Same for "Volkert van" from Delft, who should be "Volkert van Steijn".
  • For 3, 1000$ is on the rather low side for APCs, though what is strange, and perhaps explains the relatively low impact, is charging 1200$ for submitting to a subscription journal. Elsevier charges between $200 and $10K per article. (10K is utterly ridiculous, but that's what's out there). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • For Yang, that first link gets me nothing. The second and third aren't even formatted correctly. There are periods in the middle of sentences, sentences that don't start with capital letters, etc. It's possible it's a language thing, but it's pretty clear the paper hasn't been proofread--that type of thing is the same in English and Polish. Further, the Google Scholar page puts him at Katowice, links his home page to a different school (in China) and clearly confuses him with [Xiaokai Yang]. I have doubts that Xiaokai Yang of University of Economics in Katowice exists. And if he does, I have doubts that he's a real scholar--read those articles. I can find no page at University of Economics in Katowice indicating he's a faculty member there. For 2, the "strange mistake" should be unthinkable if things were real--people notice when their names are wrong. Again, maybe this is on the up-and-up. But it isn't something we should be hosting if we can't tell. Hobit (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • FYI: I've sent it back to AfD.Hobit (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hidayat ur Rehman Baloch

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hidayat ur Rehman Baloch. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ainty Painty (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2018 Ital Am cover.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2018 Ital Am cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ewald Prize

I have added some text and references to the Ewald Prize page to address the notability and verifiability issues you raised yesterday. Please take a look and let me know if I can now remove the tags or, if not, what further changes you would recommend. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 12:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and in helping me to improve this new article. Since then a number of changes to the references have been made by Headbomb/Citation bot. During this process it seems to me a large number of errors have been made. I compared the revisions of 17:14 and 18:12 on 29 Feb 2024 and found the following significant problems:

  • In refs. 1, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 19 the author(s) have been deleted
  • In ref. 17 the author "Anon." has been replaced by "Coppens, P." who is the subject of the article not its author
  • In ref. 3 the journal has been deleted
  • In ref. 5 most of the title has been deleted
  • In ref. 26 the link to the pdf of the article, provided by the referenced journal, has been replaced by a landing page, provided by another institution, from which you can then get to the pdf
  • In refs. 5 and 7 S2CIDs have been added but appear to have no value

I don't want to upset anybody, but I feel the article would be improved if I reverted the changes made by Headbomb/Citation bot. Can you advise me, or do you think I should approach Headbomb directly? GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Codebase Technologies Article

Dear Miranda,

Hope you're well. I noticed my draft for Codebase Technologies has been declined. Would you be able to provide some guidance so that i can re-draft the article to be more neutral so that we can get it published on Wikipedia. You advise is much appreciated.

Regards, Tom Tom.Romanski (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Hi Tom, looks like you already started a new draft. Make sure it's not promotional so that it won't get deleted as spam again. Apart from that, I have no real suggestions as this is not really my subject. You should try to get help at the Teahouse. You also should have a look at some of the links in the "welcome" template that I just put on your talk page, so that you learn how to make wikilinks and such. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Your help with resubmitting a revised new draft

Hello RandyKitty, I am reaching out because I am a newcomer to editing on wikipedia, and I recently posted a draft of a page that was turned down by you and sent to speedy deletion. I have worked hard to correct the problems that you identified, but it says on my sandbox page that I should reach out to you first before resubmitting. The page in question is about the Dutch academic, author and methane reduction activist, Roland Kupers. Can you please let me know what my next step should be? thank you so much for your help, best, Anne (with the wiki name of acknowledgeshame) AcknowledgeShame (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Hi Anne, I had another look at your deleted draft and there are multiple problems with it. The most important ones are that this does not read like an encyclopedic article, but more like a CV and that it also is too promotional. In addition, most references are by Kupers himself. What is needed to show that a person is notable in the WP sense are third-party sources. A lesser problem is the use of external links in the body of text. It's not necessary to link to the homepages of, for example, the schools/universities that he attended. If they have an article here, you can link to that. In general, creating new articles is very hard, especially bios. I recommend that you look at the links with tips that I just posted on your talk page. also, look at some other scientist bios, especially the better ones (class C, B, or GA). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

"International Journal of Transgenderism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect International Journal of Transgenderism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9 § International Journal of Transgenderism until a consensus is reached. Raladic (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Automation in Construction

Thanks for improving Virtual Reality journal. Can you please do the same for Automation in Construction journal? Safetystuff (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Anubias gracilis

You deleted mention of Anubias gracilis use in aquascaping as 'incorrect'? A.gracilis is grown and sold specifically (and perhaps only) for this purpose. See for example: https://tropica.com/en/plants/plantdetails/Anubiasgracilis(101D)/17819 Ajpierce (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Academic journals established in 2022

A tag has been placed on Category:Academic journals established in 2022 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

April 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Synthese. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Take it to the talk page!!!TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016 (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Naji

Hi Randykitty. Can you please explain your closing rationale at Nadia Naji as 'no consenus'. I believe my argument was more policy based than those of the other two editors who voted to keep. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  • I just had another look and stay at "no consensus": there were policy-based arguments for and against deletion. If you feel that my close does not reflect the discussion, feel free to take it to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Nadia Naji

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nadia Naji. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

EWAA Hotels

Please could you refund the article on EWAA Hotels as Draft:EWAA Hotels. When the article was called "EWAA Hotel", I did point out on the talk page that a search on Google News for EWAA Hotels produced two articles in a trade magazine. (Trade magazines are sometimes really good sources, and some of them are more objective than articles about businesses in newspapers such as The Guardian.) The editor who created the article is a new account (and possibly even a new editor) and cannot be expected to understand how to go about things. I think that he/she should be encouraged to develop the article in draft and to leave it to other people to decide when the article is ready for mainspace.

It would also help a lot if you could put a setting on EWAA Hotel and EWAA Hotels so that non-admins cannot move the draft there and cannot do a copy-and-paste move there either. This is said with experience of not-very-competent new editors who want to jump the gun and move articles to mainspace after the most minuscule amount of work improving the draft.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

ISO 4 for gazette, revisited

This is in reference to the discussion you, Headbomb, and I had back in June, 2023. The LTWA has been updated on 2024-02-26, and now the entry for Gazette reads

Gazette   gaz.   English,French

whereas previously the language annotation only said French.

Therefore, our disagreements about the rules of LTWA no longer concern this word, and I can now agree with the two of you that ISO4 for Mathematical Gazette is Math. Gaz. Reuqr (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Interaction attention.

This is not the appropriate forum, see WP:Dispute resolution.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, and thank you in advance.

I would like someone to have a look at the interactions between @TornadoInformation12 andMemeGod27.

It seems to be another in a long line of interactions that @TornadoInformation12 has been involved in. Counting just the ones I could find in a cursory talk page search, he has been asked by non-targeted users to mind his civility at least 4 times, not counting my request. I have listed these below.

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

In addition, @MemeGod27 asked him multiple times to stop giving the rather aggressive criticism he was giving. This criticism included statements such as "I told you yesterday, that we CAN"T USE NEWS ARTICLES AS PRIMARY SOURCES." and "Also for the last time, it doesn't matter if you think it's "harassment", "derogatory" or whatever buzzword you want to use, because it objectively isn't."

The second example was in an AfD talk page, which can be found at here, before it was removed by the author.

All emphasis is the authors, not mine.

My point is that someone completely removed from this argument needs to take a look at this situation, because at this point I can't maintain a NPOV. I think that while @TornadoInformation12 is probably right about the underlying issues, he is arguably harassing @MemeGod27, a very new editor, and as a veteran who has been here for many years, he should have the skills to deal with the situation in a better way. His word choice and style of writing is in this case problematic. In my opinion, someone needs to make sure that @TornadoInformation12 has a good grasp on the civility policy in place. On the flip side, @MemeGod27 may well need to gather more skill in editing with the consensus. My concerns are very much NOT about the content of the article. They are about the conduct of the parties. Thank you for your time, and I am going to step away from this situation as the situation has grown stressful, and I prefer to just revert dumb vandalism anyway. Please contact me only if you think this report was a violation of a policy, or if you would like to ask a question about it. If you do not have the time or energy to dive into this, I would appreciate you forwarding it to a different admin or respected uninvolved editor.

I would also like to ask both @TornadoInformation12 and @MemeGod27 to respect my decision to step away. Please refrain from contacting me for any avoidable reason, unless it is for an article-related discussion. If unavoidable, please do so on my talk page.

Thanks,

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  • I'm at a loss why you posted this here. If you need admin intervention, ANI is here. Before you do that, read WP:BOOMERANG and WP:Dispute resolution. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
    I am fairly new here, and don't know the dispute system well enough yet. Also, I greatly respect your work in general. In fact, you welcomed me, and I dearly appreciate that. The very reason I brought this to someone's attention is because I was getting to close to losing my own cool and good faith. If you think it is worth taking further I will, if not I will let it die here. I was actually originally going to post this to that board, but thought that I should try something else first.
    Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Guys, I realize I screwed up by loosing my cool and letting civility go out the window. I'm sorry and it won't happen again. Even if he continues to do the same stuff, I will not interact with him. I'll just revert/re-write and move on. With that said, this situation is over and I am ready to move past this and am not interested in discussing it beyond this statement here. There is no current arguing or conflict between me and this user right now, and there won't be in the future, so there is nothing further to talk about. Let's move on.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Niladrinath Das

ICYMI, six months after your prod, Niladrinath Das is back, and it's still essentially the same CV/resumé archived in the Wayback Machine. New article creator Rkp17 is similarly focused on Vikram Deb University, though this account was actually created before VDU2022. Wikishovel (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:American Journal of Neuroradiology (journal) cover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:American Journal of Neuroradiology (journal) cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Edits to Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine page

Hello -- curious to learn more about the extent of your edits to the Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine page. I take your point on limiting seemingly promotional details. But you've removed a prominent paragraph on the mechanics of CC-BY licenses (which links to a Wikipedia page) and to a more extensive list of abstracting/indexing resources (which is not promotional given that those indices are independent third parties). Any context you can provide is greatly appreciated. Tomciav (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  • We have hundreds of journal articles licensed CCBY, it would be nuts to explain CC BY in all of them, that's why we have a separate article for the "mechanics of CC-BY licenses". As for the indexing services: PubMed is trivial for an OA journal, as those are automatically included in PMC, which is indexed by PubMed. Web of Science is not an indexing service, but an access platform to indexes like SCIE. Ulrich's and CLOCKSS are rather trivial, too, as is Google Scholar. I added some that are more important (Embase, Current Contents) and deleted those that are trivial. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for the feedback. Point of nuance re: Current Contents — that too is part of the Clarivate / Web of Science ecosystem (I used to work there). So if you're ok with mentioning CC I'd say SCIE, SSCI etc are also fine to list individually.
    One point I'm going to restore to the article is the 2016 start date for Masanori Aikawa, as it speaks directly to the quality measures the journal implemented (as described in the Controversy section).
    Thanks again for the oversight. Tomciav (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The Black Scholar

Don't look if you're in a bad mood. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  • I'm doing my income taxes and I don't understand half of the things I need to do, what other mood could I be in... I'll have a look tomorrow perhaps... --Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hans de Kroon

Hey Randykitty--als je een minuutje hebt, can you maybe make this biography more "scientific"? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Looks pretty good to me. What would you like me to add, some citation parameters (#of citations, h-index)? That about those insects is rather sad, because you don't need to do a thorough counting to know something nefarious is going on: Not too long ago, one had to regularly clean the windshield of one's car because of all the bugs that had splashed onto it while driving. Nowadays, you can drive around for hours and not a single bug gets hit... --Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Note on Talk page discussion, new information

Hi Randykitty and Drmies:

I'd like to call your attention to these two (1 and 2) new revelations on the Talk page of Rootbeerlc. I find it extremely difficult to believe someone purporting to be a full professor at a public Ivy has such a perilous understanding of plagiarism that they believe attribution of large volumes of copy/paste is unnecessary if one is copying from friends and relatives. (I mean, I guess, maybe if they were a CS professor ... j/k.)

That rather shocking statement, in concert with the revelation that the article Byron Randall was created to help boost the value of an art collection the editor owns and is actively in the process of selling, causes me to rekindle my concern that this account may be impersonating the aforementioned professor and it's not impossible it might be controlled by another party (i.e. a gallery) with a pecuniary interest in retailing the art the Randall article was created to promote. Chetsford (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Edits restored to Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

Randykitty, note that after reviewing other academic journal pages on Wikipedia (G2B, for example), I've restored the longer list of abstracting/indexing entries and the section on most-cited articles to this Frontiers article.

Regarding abstracting/indexing: I take your point that, for example, Ulrich's is a borderline inclusion for the indexing list. So too is "ProQuest databases" on the G2B page. Both are accurate and cause no harm to readers by their inclusion.

Regarding a "most cited" articles section (as on G2B) vs a media coverage section for the Frontiers journal: Both sections can rightly be seen as informational and wrongly as promotional. But as above, both inclusions are accurate representations of the reach of the journal's scholarly content and do no harm to readers.

Happy to chat directly via tom.ciavarella [at] frontiersin [dot] org as needed. Tomciav (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Randykitty :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Sociološki pregled

Dear Randykitty. I appreciate your concerns regarding the notability of the article on Sociološki pregled. I have made several improvements to address these issues, primarily focusing on the General Notability Guideline (GNG) section. The journal, established in 1938 and consistently published since 1961 is the oldest sociology journal in the Balkans. Although its online presence is low, this is largely due to the decline in prominence following the Yugoslav Wars and the subsequent economic challenges, which have limited its digital footprint and international reach. However, the journal's historical resilience and contributions during critical periods are actually well-documented in independent sources. These sources provide significant coverage and establish the journal’s continued relevance and impact on the field of sociology, especially in Serbia and the rest of former Yugoslavia. Given these points, I believe the article meets the GNG by demonstrating significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Therefore, I will go for the removal of the deletion proposal based on these substantial improvements and additional evidence of the journal's notability (before the deadline mentioned on the top of the page). I wanted to let you know first and to ask how I can respond to some critical points you raised further. Once again, in this new global and often centralized scientific production environment (combined with some permanent pressure or crisis, particularly in peripheries), my argument focuses primarily on GNG as the basis for the inclusion. MirkoS18 (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics

Hi Randykitty, if you find the time, could you check out the Editors-in-chief section if some cleanup is necessary? Thanks Nobody (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics

Hi @Randykitty,

I am reaching out to seek your advice on enhancing Draft:Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics. The draft has been declined twice due to concerns about meeting the notability criteria. This is a Swiss learned society which established the Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics.

I would appreciate your insights and suggestions on how to improve the draft to better align with the notability guidelines. So that it can be resubmitted for review by the moderators.

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance.

Best,

KMerrigold KMerrigold (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics - Cleanup tag

Dear @Randykitty,

I noticed you added a Cleanup tag on the SJES Wikipedia page. Could you clarify what specifically needs to be deleted or cleaned up? Are you referring to the quotes and their English translations? Wikipedia guidelines for English articles require valid and in-depth sources. Most of the secondary sources are in German and French and have dozens of pages. It took me a lot of time to find and translate these citations, and I worry that readers won't easily find the specific information about the years of editorship if we remove them.

Please let me know how I can meet your cleanup requirements. It's a bit discouraging since I put in a lot of effort to find and translate all these citations. Also, I'm not very experienced with the Source Editor, which requires some foundational coding knowledge and increases the risk of errors on my part.

Could you help me find a gentle solution to this?

Thanks!

Best,

KMerrigold

KMerrigold (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics - Impact Factor

Dear @Randykitty,

I have just noticed that you deleted the SJES' impact factor as "journal is not in any Clarivate database, hence has no IF" . The statement needs clarification. The impact factor most commonly referenced as the "official" one is indeed provided by the Web of Science, specifically through Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Scopus, on the other hand, provides a similar metric called the CiteScore. While both metrics assess journal impact, they are derived from different databases and methodologies. Therefore, the impact factor from Web of Science is widely recognized as the official impact factor, whereas Scopus offers its own valid and official but different metric.

Please let me know if I can undo the deletion of IF.

Thank you in advance.

Best,

KMerrigold KMerrigold (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There is only one impact factor. The CiteScore is something different. RK's edit is correct. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hybrid

Do we really need to put this in the infobox here? Pretty much every journals offers a 'sure you can pay us extra money if you want' option. In the case of a subscription journal, hybrid mentions they're not completely closed, you can sell a baby to have a paper opened. In the case of a delayed open access journals, you can pay to jump ahead of the queue by 6-12 months (usually). Is that really infobox worthy here? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  • You're not wrong about that, hybrid is everywhere nowadays. Still, by not listing it, it would appear to the uninformed reader (hoping to become informed by reading WP :-) that the only option here is delayed OA after a year. So I'd say yes, this is infobox worthy. --Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_33&oldid=1240151026"