Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Archive 1

Archive 1

To do list

This is a compilation of what has been suggested so far to improve this list. Simply strike when it's done / remove when it doesn't apply anymore. Please discuss in other sections.

• Striping all markup from the entries, especially the various ' (in any combination) used to italicize things (The New York Times → The New York Times).
  • Got most of them, let me know if I missed anything
    • Some left, but I doubt "Journal of Physics [B]"-like entries can be processed in a meaninful way. Correct me if I'm wrong.
• Stripping any non characters from the beginning of the entry (." Journal of Physiology → Journal of Physiology).
  • Got most of them, let me know if I missed anything
    • Seems to be in order
• There should be 1 master template, with a parameter such as letter=B, and "ifexist" checks. This would reduce clutter. (see {{JournalsMain}} and {{JournalsLetter}})
  • Implemented
• Lists should not be broken in two.
  • Implemented
• The navbox should have a search bar (see {{JournalsMain}})
• The bottom of the page should have a footer for convenience. (see {{JournalsPrevNext}})
  • Implemented
• Redirects should be italicized+bolded.
• Tables should be sortable for convenience.
• Citations with a count of 1/2/3/.../? should have the link to the 1/2/3/.../? articles citing them, to help fix typos and vandalism.
• (The #Presentation tweak would make this pointless) The individual pages should have a disclaimer saying this is the bare parameters used (with some filters), and not the actual number of references to the actual journal, least some people claim some journal more popular than others, when they are not when you look at the combined entries (PRL + Phys Rev Lett + Phys. Rev. Lett. + Physical Review Letters + ...), and references not placed in citation templates.
• See #Presentation tweak below

BOT generated list of journals is complete

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals

After several false starts and bug fixes, a comprehensive list of journals cited by Wikipedia is finally complete. You can read more about the project and see the results at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/. It is hoped that this list will help members find missing pages that need created. Comments and suggestions for improving the results on the next run are certainly welcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

First thanks, this will prove incredibly useful. Some comments:

• For the next runs, it looks like it would be useful for the compilation to strip all markup from the entries, especially the various ' (in any combination) used to italicize things (The New York Times → The New York Times.)
  • It already strips out correct ''/''', so the remaining entries are the result of bad markup that probably causes display problems on the article it is on. That said, it isn't really relevant for this project's purpose so I'll change the code to strike all groups of 2+ ' marks.
• Stripping any non characters from the beginning of the entry (." Journal of Physiology → Journal of Physiology)
  • It already strips some leading characters, but I'll expand it to strip more.
• Sortable tables would be nice.
  • I can easily make this change, but I'm not sure how useful it will be to sort an alphabetical grouping of 50 by # of cites.
• Redirects were not italicized+bolded.
  • I forgot about this request. It turns out that this is rather tricky since the dump of redirects in useless for this purpose (it lists redirects by their internal article # rather than name for some reason). That makes it a bit tricky, but I should be able to work something out.
• Citations with a count of 1/2 should have the link to the 1/2 articles citing them, since it's probably a typo or a bad entry / vandalism.
  • Excellent idea. I'll add that.

More as they come. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

See in-line replies above --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

weee! Thank you ThaddeusB!

Awesome :) In the future you may want to add {{R from abbreviation}} (or similiar template) to these pages when creating them to aid third parties organizing content for offline printing. I've added instructions to this effect on the intro page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised to see Idrottsarvet in the top list when it doesnt appear to have been used often on Wikipedia, according to google. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if maybe the count got messed up somehow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"ArXive preprint" is a common missing journal name. not sure what we should do about them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Manuscript in preparation" is used as source 11 times on Wikipedia. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Counts are WAY off - As suspected, the Idrottsarvet thing was caused by a bug. It seems that when the BOT encountered a redirect or very short page it reused the text from the previous page, thus semi-randomly increasing some journals counts by huge numbers. I have corrected the bug and I am rerunning the bot now. Unfortunately, it will be 36-48 hours before I have corrected stats to post, as it takes quite some time to analyze 23GB of text. I would recommend holding off on doing any work until then. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (now corrected - see below)

Some more things

• The per-letter navbox are not present for all letters. (It's there for A, but not for others. I know for sure that J would have a bunch of entries!)
• Substing the navbox isn't a good idea, there should be one master navbox, transclured, with parameters such as letter=B and so on.
• Breaking the lists halfway through the page is annoying. Single lists would be much better.

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's really weird. My local write tests generated the per letter box correctly... It looks like every page except for page 1 of each letter got the correct box. See for example T2.

Every letter except X has at least two pages. J is the most with 61. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt worry about it - definitely, do not stop the process ... I am counting down the hours to having a refreshed list now that I have killed about 100 redlinks!! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good news - the corrected version of the program also ran much faster & finished in less than 24 hours instead of the 36-48 it was taking before. The bot is in the process of uploading the corrected data now. I also fixed the missing "per letter" navbox bug. For expediency, none of the other suggested improvements have been made yet.

The list is pretty much the same except that most entries before were exaggerated to variable degrees... The "total cites" went from 8 million to 355 thousand. I took a sneak peak at the top 100 (which won't actually be uploaded until near the end of the run) and it has a lot more blue than last time - and the red links are almost all abbreviations. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

All done re-uploading now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! A question, is this the number of page hits, of the number of citation hits? Some more suggestions:

• Include a search box in the navboxes
• The invidual pages should have a disclamer saying this is the bare parameters used (with some filters), and not the actual number of references to the actual journal, least some people claim some journal more popular than others, when they are not when you look at the combined entries (PRL + Phys Rev Lett + Phys. Rev. Lett + Physical Review Letters + ...).

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is citation hits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A few requests:

1. most popular should have amalgamated stats, as Headbomb suggests, where there is a redirect. e.g. one entry for PRL + Phys Rev Lett + Phys. Rev. Lett + Physical Review Letters + ...)
2. An error report, where the journal field contains junk which cant be parsed into a sensible journal name/appreviation, can we have those citations listed on an error page, with a link to the page where the citation is on. e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Non1 starts with "[[{{Fact]]". I'd love to know where that appears, so we can fix it. There are also similar issues on Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Num1 which might be parser errors, or the raw data may not be sensible and needs a human to adjust it. e.g. I was able to fix these three because they were easy to find, but many are not easy to find.
   1. Another error condition would be if there is a hyperlink in the journal parameter. I dont think there is any reason for a hyperlink in the journal parameter - it could hide the fact that we dont have an article, or it could hide the fact it is a non-notable e-journal.
3. There are a lot of articles about a journal which are disambiguated as " (journal)". e.g. Science (journal) rather than Science.
   1. Where there is a wikilink to a journal in the journal= param, but there is actually an article at a corresponding page name that is disambiguated, it would be nice if these were flagged separately, so we can semi-automatically correct those links, thereby improving the most popular stats

      i.e. "| journal = Science", where Science (journal) exists

   2. Where there is a unlinked name of a journal in the journal= param, and an article exists at a corresponding page name that is disambiguated, it would be nice if these were listed separately, because we really need to update those articles and provide a disambiguated link.

      i.e. "| journal = Science", where Science (journal) exists

3.1 is an error report, and it would be helpful to have a page which lists all (article, incorrect link) tuples.

3.2 isnt very important, and could be a very large unmanageable list that nobody wants to work on.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

These are good suggestions, although not necessarily easy to implement. Let me explain how the parser currently works:

1. Newline characters are stripped (some entries have newlines in the middle of them, which previously screwed up processing)
2. HTML character markup is converted (& -> &)
3. leading spaces, colons, periods, and = signs are trimmed
4. leading "in: " or "from: " is removed (there are quite a lot of these actually)
5. bold/italics (''/''') and " marks are removed when correctly balanced
6. "volume/vol. XXX ..." is cut when proceeded by a , or ;
7. internally linked journals are delinked and when piped the display text is used ([[Science (journal)|Science]] -> Science) - incidentally, most journals aren't linked in my experience
8. externally linked journal are converted to what the link name is ([http://example.com Example Journal] -> Example Journal)
9. wiki comments are removed
10. groups of 2+ spaces in a row are converted to one space

I put all these things in place to try and pre-filter out some of the most common errors. Now obviously these sorts of things should be corrected. If you want to expand the effort to do so, I will be glad to add an "apparent error list" to future runs. (Headbomb and I had already discussed this a bit on his talk page, so you might want see what I already wrote as well).

Some of the really bizarre things you see in the list are probably the result of parser error. For example, one of the "cleanup functions" probably broke an URL in the middle in the examples below. The {{fact and similar items are probably in the form {{cite journal|journal={{fact}}Some journal ...}} - the parser thinks the first }} is the end of the citation. This is would actually quite difficult to fix & isn't worth the effort. (Flagging the associated page for clean up isn't a problem though. It certainly is a bizarre place to put a fact tag).

In any case, I will try to implement as many suggestions as I can before the next run. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We should be able to find a lot of people able to help with the cleanup project. There was a team that worked on cleaning up invalid ISSNs and ISBNs - I am sure most of those people would be keen to assist in cleaning up the journal parameter, even if they are not involved in this WikiProject. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

parsing bug

There is a bug which means that "journal=.." within a url parameter is parsed and added to the list. See Num1 and google, which points to this being the page with the citation which causes the bug GMA News and Public Affairs. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Another examples is here, which appears on Num2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

After closer examination, I see what caused this - I failed to force an appropriate leading character before "journal=". It should be an easier fix. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Counting

To tweak the counting of articles, all dots should be stripped (just for the purpose of counting however!). There's an idea of using the redirects to follow the article, which is nice (although not perfect), but this doesn't solve cases like "Biochemistry." where the period is added for formatting concerns, and which should not have redirects created for them. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

missing or blank journal parameter

One of the "interesting facts" is that there are over 1000 citations with missing or blank journal parameter. That would be another good list to compile so we can investigate why. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Another good suggestion to add to my to do list. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs a category

This page needs to be categorized. Category:Wikipedia statistics? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done - I went ahead and added that category plus Category:WikiProject Academic Journals --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

New upload in progress

The bot has finished compiling the latest stats and is uploading now. Some interesting info:

• The highest red link number fell from 10190 to 328
• J. Biol. Chem. gained ~4500 cites, which is more than all but about 5 other journals have in total. I suspect bot/automated content adding is the source
• The number of missing "journals" rose by about 2500, but fell on a percentage basis from 82.3% to 81.4%
• Total journal citations rose 11.5% compared to ~8% rise in total content Wikipedia wide

Let me know of any problems found in the data. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Presentation tweak

Here's what I think the end result should look like down the road

Journal	Target	Citations	Articles (if ≤ 5 uniques)
Am J Foo	American Journal of Foobar	98	>5	Wikipedia · Google
American Journal of Foobar	American Journal of Foobar	3	1, 2	Wikipedia · Google
American Journal of Foobar A	—	7	1, 2, 3	Wikipedia · Google
American Journal of Foobar B	—	1	1	Wikipedia · Google
J Foo	Journal of Foobar	4	1, 2	Wikipedia · Google
J. Foo	Journal of Foobar	47	>5	Wikipedia · Google
Journal of Foobar	Journal of Foobar	32	>5	Wikipedia · Google
Journal of PENIS!!!1h!AHA	—	1	1	Wikipedia · Google

It doesn't have to be made in one fell-swoop, but I think that's a reasonable end-goal. And there could be a "Most popular target" compilation made to accompany this. What do you think? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nepal's Village Development Committees

Why is "Nepal's Village Development Committees" included in /Missing1? It is found in {{cite web}} in param "work". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

New update

A new update has finally been done by me/my bot. (Yah!)

A few of the feature suggestions have been implemented. With summer coming up, I should have some free time soon to implement more before the next run. Here are the changes and other highlights of the run:

• Bug fix that caused certain UTF8 titles not to be recognized as existing even when they did.
• Redirects are now recognized as such (bold + italic); individual letter pages list where pages redirect to.
• Tables are now sortable on letter pages
• "J. Biol. Chem." remained the most popular link, but actually lost 1000 or so hits
• "Nature", "Science", and "Myconet" were among the biggest gainers
• "Bahá'í News" went from 3 hits to 1171; looks like a bunch of "Bahá'í Faith in XYZ" article were created using the journal one of the main sources
• Total citations are up 16%, unique "journals" are up 18%, % missing is down a pt; Wikipedia as a whole is up 11% in total text and 8% in # of articles in the same period. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that citations (or at least those using the journal= parameter) are growing in popularity. In other words, articles on average on becoming better referenced.

The new redirect feature is not well tested and so may generate a few bugs. Let me know of any incorrect taggings/non-taggings you find, as well as any unrelated issues.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!! What database dump is this based on? The main page still says 'August 22, 2009'. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to go tweak the references of articles to journals that had just one reference, but when I used Special:Whatlinkshere, a lot of them were only linked to by the list of redlinks. Could the bot be set to exlude the project pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepstherainoff (talk • contribs) 14:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

detection of appropriate page

Hi, I see that JL-Bot (talk · contribs) is now updating these pages. \o/ Thanks JLaTondre.

There are quite a few existing articles where the target isnt correct on Popular1 and friends. e.g. Nature and Science have targets Nature (journal) and Science (journal), however Cell, Genomics, Gene and Flight dont list their target as Cell (journal), Genomics (journal), Gene (journal) and Flight (magazine). Can the bot look for "<x> (journal)" postfix and use that when the page exists. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's does that for cases where there are citations for both the "Title" and "Title (journal|magazine|newspaper)" formats (the Nature & Science cases). I'll extend it to pick up the others as well. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

To address the same thing from a different angle I'm intending to do a database scan to identify wikilinked |journal= in citation templates that link to disambiguation pages such as Science, and identify and then fix the target (i.e. to Science). Rjwilmsi 17:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Great. If this task needs a lot of manual editing, please create a project page listing the problems and the project team will fix them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The bot is currently uploading a new version. It is the same data, but it should now should properly detect all the (journal), (magazine), or (newspaper) variants. It also adds a search= parameter to the row template in order to properly encode the journal title in search links (i.e replaced the MediaWiki urlencode which has a bug causing the template parsing to fail). Please let me know if you see any issues. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem / bug with the Mediawiki encoding ? Do you have an example? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes & no. Yes, you can see the problem on Num2 and Num3 where there are row templates that are not appearing correctly. No, in that it's still happening so it's obviously not the problem I thought it was. I'm now thinking it's the unbalanced brackets in the journal parameter and that I will need to <nowiki> those when they contain brackets (same as I do with the display parameter). If I do that, I would still need the search parameter as I couldn't piggyback the journal parameter (wouldn't want the <nowiki>). I haven't dealt with templates a lot so if anybody has better suggestions, I'd welcome it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem might not be exactly what you think. For example

{{JCW-top}}
{{JCW-row|journal=[CAL [magazine] Certified Akers Laboratories]|display=[CAL [magazine] Certified Akers Laboratories]|target=Invalid|citations=2|articles=[[Lucy Hobbs Taylor|1]]|search=%5BCAL%20%5Bmagazine%5D%20Certified%20Akers%20Laboratories%5D}}
{{JCW-row|journal=[[Children's Literature (journal)|display=[[Children's Literature (journal)|target=Invalid|citations=1|articles=[[Connie Ann Kirk|1]]|search=%5B%5BChildren%27s%20Literature%20%28journal%29}}
|}

Gives

{{JCW-row|journal=[[Children's Literature (journal)|display=[[Children's Literature (journal)|target=Invalid|citations=1|articles=1|search=%5B%5BChildren%27s%20Literature%20%28journal%29}}

Journal1	Type2	Target1	Type2	Citations	Articles	⁠Citations/article⁠	Search
[CAL [magazine] Certified Akers Laboratories]	?	Invalid	?	2	1	2.000	Wikipedia (J·M·T) Google (J·M·T)

The problem lies with the second row, which has |journal=[[Children's literature (journal). It really doesn't like those unbalanceed [[ brackets. Fixing it to

{{JCW-top}}
{{JCW-row|journal=[CAL [magazine] Certified Akers Laboratories]|display=[CAL [magazine] Certified Akers Laboratories]|target=Invalid|citations=2|articles=[[Lucy Hobbs Taylor|1]]|search=%5BCAL%20%5Bmagazine%5D%20Certified%20Akers%20Laboratories%5D}}
{{JCW-row|journal=Children's Literature (journal)|display=Children's Literature (journal)|target=Invalid|citations=1|articles=[[Connie Ann Kirk|1]]|search=%5B%5BChildren%27s%20Literature%20%28journal%29}}
|}

Solves it

Journal1	Type2	Target1	Type2	Citations	Articles	⁠Citations/article⁠	Search
[CAL [magazine] Certified Akers Laboratories]	?	Invalid	?	2	1	2.000	Wikipedia (J·M·T) Google (J·M·T)
[[Children's Literature (journal)	?	Invalid	?	1	1	1.000	Wikipedia (J·M·T) Google (J·M·T)

It's got nothing to do with the "search" thing. You can revert to the old template behavior, as long as you take care of those unbalanced [[ / [ (the root problem seems to be a mishandling of something like |journal=[[Children's Literature (journal)|Children's Literature]]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the root problem is that the parameter to the citation template in the source article was invalid (you actually fixed it here but after the dump). The bot is parsing the |journal= correctly. It has to be able to deal with bad citation parameters because they exist in articles. The easiest solution, as I said above, is to <nowiki></nowiki> it. I could just strip out the brackets, but I've noticed that you guys seem to also use the list to find and fix broken entries like this and that would "hide" them. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I guess it should just be nowiki'd? Or maybe have a |nowiki=yes?Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

20110901 Database Dump

Results of the 2011-09-01 database dump have been posted. One question: On previous runs, the Num results took 3 pages. This time it only took 2 (looks like someone has been cleaning up the ones caused by broken formatting in the citation formats). However, Num3 still exists and shows up via the {{JournalsLetter}} template. How do you want that handled? Ignored? Blanked? Deleted? While not frequent, this is probably something that will occur on and off as new citations are added & cleaned up. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem solved by the first 2012 update, which spills over into Num3! If it happens again, I think the page should include the header and footer and a note like "Empty; this page is retained as its history contains entries from prior runs of the analysis engine". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunate interaction between template and wikiproject

{{Cite magazine}} and {{Cite magazine article}} redirect to Template:Cite journal.

The problem is that using {{Cite journal}} puts the article on Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia.

This puts publications that are not academic journals on the list of academic journals. Examples include: ABC Soaps In Depth, Amazing Heroes, Golden Boy Promotions, Golf World, The Amazing Pudding, Time for Kids, Toons at War, and Xtra!

In addition, this loops back and puts a entry to the list of academic journals in the "what links here list" for every article that uses {{Cite journal}}.

Possible solutions:

We could stop calling every magazine a journal and have a {{Cite magazine}} template.

We could rename Academic Journals cited by Wikipedia to reflect the fact that many of the entries are not academic journals.

(This was posted to Template talk:Cite journal, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals. I suggest centralizing the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand the problem. Exactly how does the use of {{cite journal}} put the article on Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia? I have checked the What links here for that page, and there are no articles that I can see: most (but not all) are pages in Wikipedia: space. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I really don't think it's an issue that needs something to be done about. Whatever renaming is chosen (e.g. Periodicals cited by Wikipedia) will still have things which aren't in the "scope" (i.e. conference proceedings, monographs, etc...). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that my posting has been moved... I did make it at the location suggested by Guy Macon, after all. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia is automatically populated. What is the difference between a magazine and a journal? How would the output differ? I see a very easy technical fix, but it would still require a lot of education and enforcement to keep magazines and journals separate. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

OK— I see it is done by a bot. I see other issues where a title is added by the misuse of |work=, which is not uncommon. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

For an example, see List of professional golfers who have hit an albatross and click on "What links here." What you see is a link that says "Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/G6 (links)" that appears to have been auto-populated and auto-linked back simply because of a cite journal to Golf World in the article.

That's misleading. Golf World is not an academic journal and we should not have auto-generated links that imply that some unnamed academic journal is cited. I can give examples where Amazing Heroes and The Amazing Pudding are called academic journals if you want.

"Publications cited by Wikipedia" would cover all the examples given above. Besides, claiming something is a periodical when it is a monograph is far less misleading than claiming that Golf World or Xtra! is an academic journal.

I don't think this discussion should have been moved away from where I suggested having the discussion. Moving it here left an incorrect link on the template talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me refactor these questions:

• Who is being confused between a magazine and a journal?
• What is the difference between a magazine and a journal?
• How would the output differ between a magazine and a journal?
• Who decides what is and is not a journal?
• If were were to create a separate template for magazines, who educates editors?
• If were were to create a separate template for magazines, who cleans up the current usage?
• Are there sources other than magazines being used by cite journal?

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Who is being confused? The reader who visits The Amazing Pudding and clicks on "what links here" is being misled. He sees a claim that The Amazing Pudding is an academic journal. Now of course that's a silly example chosen for being about as far from being an academic journal as possible, but what about publications that pretend to be academic journals but are instead advertising or pseudoscience? Those would also benefit from a "what links here" entry that implies that they are legitimate academic journals. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no such implications. The page is "Journals cited by Wikipedia", not "Academic journals cited by Wikipedia". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect. What the reader clicks on "what links here" sees in neither "Journals cited by Wikipedia" nor "Academic journals cited by Wikipedia", but rather "Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia". I think the implication is pretty clear.--Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Why does this matter to people who are reading or editing articles? The fact that one non-article list compiled by bot identifies a reference as an academic journal matters not a jot to the majoirty of users - what matters is whether the reference is a reliable source and that the reader/editor can find out what the source is, can judge whether it is appropriate and where it can be found - just because it is not an academic journal is no reason why "The Amazing Pudding" may not be a reliable source for, say, puddings. There are lots of other problems associated with this list (such as it not recognising perfectly valid references which don't happen to be formatted in a template, or how it doesn't cope with redirects) - perhaps these should be thought about first.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that other problems exist with the list is not a reason to not address the particular problem I brought up, and besides, zero of them has any effect on the particular page on which I noticed this issue. This happens by random chance to have been List of professional golfers who have hit an albatross because I was checking "what links here" while deciding whether to revert the deletion of an orphan tag, but it could have been any of hundreds of other pages with the same issue. None of the other problems you mention affect that particular article. This problem does.

List of professional golfers who have hit an albatross already has a reference to a reliable source (Golf World) and the reader/editor can already find out what the source is, whether it is appropriate, and where it can be found. All that came for free when someone cited Golf World as a reliable source on the topic of professional golfers who have hit an albatross. Yes, compliance with WP:RS is an important thing to do, but it is not, as you claim above, the only thing that matters. Not having misleading robot-generated link text in the "what links here" is also important - not nearly as important as WP:RS but certainly not worth ignoring on that basis. Both of the above arguments appear to be variations on WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:SEWAGE.

The content of "what links here" does matter to at least some of the people who are reading or editing articles. Why does that article have a link to WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia at all? You click on the link and it shows you Golf World - but Golf World is already in the References. The only information that link adds is in the link text, and the link text strongly implies something that is completely false. You may think that this issue is no big deal or that the issue should be ignored because other stuff exists, but Wikipedia is built on the principle of a large number of editors identifying problems big and small and fixing them. This is a real problem - minor but still real - and there is no reason why it should not be fixed.

Getting back to Gadget850's list, it does appear that adding a new template for Magazines would be a lot of work. I think it would be far simpler to either rename this page so or modify the bot so that the link text is less misleading, leaving everything else as is. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The template in itself would be trivial, but the cleanup would be horrendous. Determining whether a particular publication meets the definition of an academic journal is is going to be contentious; even our article on journal is confusing.

We do need to continue this discussion more publicly, as the issue of magazine v. journal keeps cropping up. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I often add refs using a magazine as a source, mainly The Railway Magazine. For a period I used {{cite magazine}} for this, until I realised that AWB was altering all of them to {{cite journal}} (it began doing this here), since when I've used {{cite journal}} directly. This has brought me into conflict with editors who state that I shouldn't use {{cite journal}} for something that isn't a peer-reviewed academic journal - I should be using {{cite news}}. It might not be peer-reviewed, and is definitely not "academic", but it's certainly not a newspaper; so as long as {{cite magazine}} is a redirect pointing to {{cite journal}}, I shall use the latter. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. This keeps coming up on the talk page. The redirect has been in place since 2006. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ideally editors would use |magazine= or |journal= appropriately (even though the template treats them as synonyms) then we'd be able to differentiate between the two. Rjwilmsi 09:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My solution would be to split these lists into two. One set would be confirmed journals, which may be via links to articles that include {{infobox journal}} or by use of ISSNs which appear on a page which contains {{infobox journal}}. The other would be everything else, and named vaguely like "Other usage of cite templates". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I really don't see a need for that. This list's main purpose is to assist article creation and make sure the redirects exist and point to the correct location. Distinguishing between journals, monographs, conference proceedings, magazines, etc.. will be a technical nightmare and would produce nearly meaningless results since several if not most magazine citations use |journal= anyway. This really is a non-issue. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I also dont see the problem, but my solution at least is functionally useful. The "Other usage of cite templates" is a list of journals which dont have {{infobox journal}}, so we can go through the list and add {{infobox journal}} to them where that is appropriate! ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals

For those following this page, there is a discussion of this list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#Academic journals? --Mark viking (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

List of journals that have a WP article and are mentioned in another WP article

Other than using {{cite}} and friends. For example, often an article is cited with bare which doesn't have a separate field for the journal title. Yet we have a controlled vocabulary of journal titles and former names and ISO-4 abbreviations to search for. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Cite proceedings

Would it be possible to run a similar bot to index usage of {{Cite proceedings}}? Many conference post-proceedings are published in journals these days (see Category:Conference proceedings published in journals) and I'm afraid we're missing on these. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Cite doi templates

Would it be possible and useful to have the bot scan the templates created by {{Cite doi}} (in Category:Cite doi templates)? Regads, Illia Connell (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

@Illia Connell: Either that or, as {{Cite doi}} has been deprecated, its calls ought to be be migrated to {{Cite journal}} (I assume not many would be actually {{Cite book}}). Fgnievinski (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Journal popularity confused by redirects

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Popular1, there is:

• 3rd: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
• 31st: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
• 34th: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
• 66th: PNAS
• 155th: Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
• 186th: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA

If their hit numbers are added, this journal might reach second place! Fgnievinski (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Saving links to pages citing each journal

I'm sure the bot already forms a list of all pages citing each journal; could those lists be saved, please (in, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Nature (journal)). Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Why would you want to do that? Just go to the article on a journal and click "what links here". Gives you all links (including those to redirects) and that is always up to date, whereas a bot-generated list would start deteriorating from the moment it was created. --Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Because most pages cite a journal without linking to it, and it's not trivial to query template:cite journal usage by field values. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but how would that be useful? And it's fairly trivial to do with AWB and databases dumps. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"Trivial" requires 42-GB WP db dump. I think it'd be nice if WP pages about academic journals provided a link in their see-also section, showing where that journal in being cited in Wikipedia. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, how would that be useful to have this hosted on Wikipedia? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it either. That would make for some gigantic "see also" sections for some journal like Nature and Science. And we already have a list (this one) of which journals are cited where and how often (including unlinked cases). --Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

In my view, a reader interested enough in WP's page about a journal would also find it interesting to see how WP is citing that journal. And the see-also section would only include a link to the list, which would be stored separately, of course (either in, e.g., Nature (journal)/Wikipedia citations or Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Nature (journal). I'll give AWB a try. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a bad idea in many respects. We don't post links in mainspace to WP space. Also, WP is not a reliable source for anything, so what it cites and how much is something you can only comment upon if you have an external source, which, to say the least, seems unlikely to exist. Not to mention the incentive this would give to publishers to get people to insert references to their journals in WP... WP citations are trivial... --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the genie is already out of the bottle -- "the Royal Society of Chemistry is delighted when its publications are referenced by Wikipedia editors."[1] But I'll not insist. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Well yeah, it gets them more visibility, so of course they would be delighted. But producing the equivalent of a Journal Citation Reports for Wikipedia isn't the goal of these lists. The purpose of these lists is mostly to help prioritize which missing article to write, and to help fix and find typos and bad template usage. They should certainly not be posted anywhere in the mainspace. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Next dump numbers will probably change a lot

If you're wondering why there's a big jump next time for the late April/early May update, that's because all the {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}} templates have been deleted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambigs needed

Moved from [2] Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

For Lancet and some other entries. Can this page be edited manually, or would this break the bot updates? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Diacritics

Moved from [3] Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

A lot of these are Latin characters, with diacritics. —innotata 22:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

interesting list

Moved from [4] Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting list. Thanks for you work. emijrp (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Color-coding categorization

@JLaTondre, DGG, Randykitty, Mark viking, Everymorning, and Steve Quinn: It always annoyed me that we can't easily tell if a link is pointed to its intended target or not. So I figure if we color code some things, that would help. For instead, when everything behaves nicely, we would have

Rank	Journal1	Type2	Target1	Type2	Citations	Articles	⁠Citations/article⁠	Search
0	ISO 4	ISO	ISO 4	ISO	50000	20000	2.500	Wikipedia (J·M·T) Google (J·M·T)
1	Academic journal	J	Academic journal	J	40000	20000	2.000	Wikipedia (J·M·T) Google (J·M·T)
2	Magazine	Mag	Magazine	Mag	20000	15000	1.333	Wikipedia (J·M·T) Google (J·M·T)
3	Newspaper	News	Newspaper	News	15000	10000	1.500	Wikipedia (J·M·T) Google (J·M·T)
4	Website	Web	Website	Web	10000	5000	2.000	Wikipedia (J·M·T) Google (J·M·T)
5	Book	Book	Book	Book	5000	2500	2.000	Wikipedia (J·M·T) Google (J·M·T)
6	Database	Data	Database	Data	5000	2000	2.500	Wikipedia (J·M·T) Google (J·M·T)
7	Publisher	Pub	Publisher	Pub	5000	1000	5.000	Wikipedia (J·M·T) Google (J·M·T)
8	Uncategorized	?	Uncategorized	?	1000	750	1.333	Wikipedia (J·M·T) Google (J·M·T)

But if there is a mismatch, we would have two different colors on the same line.

This would let us immediately see if there is an issue with were the links point, or if we forgot to categorize some articles. What's the feeling on this? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

JLaTondre (talk · contribs), what's doable here? Could we get a mockup of say Popular1 and A1 to see what this would look like in practice? If you find "journal", "magazine", "website", "publisher" in the categories, can you use that to populate |display-type= and |target-type=. (Also, if you find {{R from ISO 4}}, you can use that to set |display-type=journal.) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• At the moment, I am not sure what this is ?? about. Is this a link detector? I am guessing it is a good idea, but I am not sure what the intent is. And I am not sure what this is. However, maybe if I see it in action with specific journals or magazines I would understand it. If you want to implement it - feel free to do so. I am sure I will catch on. I notice links to Nature(journal) in the right hand links. And then another journal below that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's use a real example (from E1, so you'll see better what I mean. Currently Earth (magazine) redirects to American Geosciences Institute. This would be presented as Earth = Magazine, which can be inferred from the title, and (American Geosciences Institute = Publisher, which can be inferred from a category with "societies" in it. Visually, this would look like

Journal1	Type2	Target1	Type2	Citations	Articles	⁠Citations/article⁠	Search
Earth	Mag	American Geosciences Institute	Pub	11	11	1.000	Wikipedia (J·M·T) Google (J·M·T)

We clearly see there is a mismatch between the two links. One is from a magazine, the other is to a publisher. Consider instead if the redirect Earth (magazine) wasn't created. What we would have is

Journal1	Type2	Target1	Type2	Citations	Articles	⁠Citations/article⁠	Search
Earth	?	Earth	?	11	11	1.000	Wikipedia (J·M·T) Google (J·M·T)

This would tell us neither article are categorized, and would need to be reviewed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb This is really good. I think we should use it - make it part of this project. Thanks for doing this. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I will look into it. It sounds doable. The biggest issue will properly be recognizing the article types. It may be we start with some easy to recognize cases and then add onto it as we go. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. You might want to externalize a keyword list or something so it's easier to update things without your involvement, but it's probably simplest if we just iterate a few times until we get something 'good enough', and then refine the logic from dump to dump as we find corner cases. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Implementation

Implemented in the current run that is updating now. However, it looks like you only did the coloring in a sandbox version of the template? If you update the main template, it should show up. Currently, it is using the following logic for detecting types:

1. First checks if title is "SOMETHING (journal)", "SOMETHING (magazine)", etc. and basis it on that
2. Second checks for {{R from ISO 4}} and declares it a journal
3. Third checks for "Category: SOMETHING journals", Category: SOMETHING magazines", etc. and basis it on that

It will first check if it is a journal, then magazine, then newspaper, then website, and then publisher so if it has multiple categories, it will use the one it finds first in that order. Let me know if anything looks weird. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you did make changes to {{JCW-row}}, but they aren't working. The first two tables above are using {{JCW-row/sandbox}} and they are showing the colors. But the next two (the Earth examples) are using the non-sandbox version and are not showing the colors. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@JLaTondre: Looks great for a first pass. Some comments/refinements. Logic order should be

1. Foobar = {ISO > Journal > Magazine > Newspaper > Website > Database > Book > Publisher} (i.e. add an ISO and a Book type)
   1. Journal = {Abhandlungen, Abh., Abh, Annals, Ann., Ann, Berichte, Bulletin, Bull., Bull, Cahiers, Comptes Rendus, C. R., C R, C.R., CR, Journal, J., J, Letters, Lett., Lett, Notices, Not., Not, Proceedings, Proc., Proc, Publications of <...>, Publ., Publ, Reviews, Review, Rev., Rev, Transactions, Trans., Trans, Zeitschrift, Z., Z}
   2. Magazine = {Digest, Fanzine, Magazine, Mag., Mag, Newsletter, Newsl., Newsl, Webzine}
   3. Newspaper = {Chronicle, Courier, Daily, Echo, Gazette, Herald, Mail, Newspaper, Post, Standard, Star, Sun, Sunday, Tabloid, Telegraph, Times, Tribune}
   4. Website = {Website, www., .com, .gov, .org}
   5. Book = {Anthology, Book, Dictionary, Encyclopaedia, Encyclopædia, Encyclopedia, Handbook}
   6. Database = {Catalog, Catalogue, Database}
   7. Publisher = {Academy, Agency, Association, Books, Commission, Committee, Company, Co., Co, Corporation, Editions, Éditions, École, GmbH, Group, Inc., Inc, Imprint, Institute,, Ltd., Ltd, Museum, Organisation, Organization, Press, Presses, <...> Publications<ENDMATCH>, Publisher, Publishers, Publishing, School, Society, Sons, University}
   8. All synonyms should be exact matches, but not case sensitive
2. Look for Category:Redirects from ISO 4, if so, the type is ISO
3. Look for "\(.* foobar\)" disambiguator in page title
4. Look for "foobar" in category. Restrict synonyms to
   1. Journal = {Annals, Journals, Proceedings, Transactions}
   2. Magazine = {Digests, Newsletters, Magazines, Fanzines, Webzines}
   3. Newspaper = {Gazettes, Newspapers, Tabloids}
   4. Website = {Websites}
   5. Book = {Anthologies, Books, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, Handbooks}
   6. Database = {Catalogs, Catalogues, Databases}
   7. Publisher = {Academies, Agencies, Associations, Commissions, Committees, Companies, Corporations, Imprints, Institutes, Museums, Organisations, Organizations, Presses, Publishers, Schools, Societies, Universities}
5. Look for "foobar" in title

Also, if you could use |d-type= and |t-type= instead of |display-type= and |target-type= it would save some KBs. And instead of "journal", "magazine", etc., just "j", "m", "w", etc. See [5] and [6]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Updating now with the new logic. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Doing a quick review, it seems I've missed a few keywords. I've put them in bold in the above list.
2. In Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Popular1, J. Biol. Chem. and Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. and many others are categorized as a journal. It should be categorized as an ISO redirect. (Sidenote, looking through Category:Redirects from ISO 4 is safer than looking for templates). It's also possible you're cheking for ISO too late in the logic
3. The bot doesn't try to categorize red links. Not sure if it should since the above logic is kinda designed so that making sense of the title is the last resort. There would be fair number of false categorizations if categories can't be relied on. On the other hand, many/most such categorizations will be valid. I think it'd be worth it on redlinks.
4. Default" should use "?" (or just nothing) instead of "d". This will free up d for "Database". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

New version saving with all changes except these and red link parsing. Take a look at it and check the false positive rate. There are plenty of pages (like anything with 'not' in the title) that would get id'd as journals that aren't, but that might not be too much of an issue since they aren't ones that are probably get used in citations. I'll add the new 'aliases' as well and think about how to do the red link parsing (have to refactor for that). I won't do another update until the April dump comes out. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Will review. But I'm betting there won't be too many negatives. Thought of that and did a "in title" searches, and the occurrences are few for those that would appear in the journal parameter.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

JLaTondre (talk · contribs), something weird going on with the magazine logic. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, found the issue. Databases were also being assigned the wrong value. I've fixed those and added the new 'aliases'. I'll make an updated run tomorrow since the current results aren't correct. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Also

• The disambiguator check seems to fail. Coffin Corner (magazine) (display column) gets treated as a journal, when it should be a magazine. Same for Next Generation (magazine), both display/target columns. There are many others.
• Cochrane (organisation) (target column) is treated as a journal when it should be a publisher. That was a missing keyword (now in bold).
• The "Herald" keyword isn't recognized as a newspaper in Exhibitors Herald (display column). Same for "Gazette" (The Gazette of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Extraordinary, in the display column). Or the www. keyword (www.uniprot.org considered a journal, rather than a website)
• New Lloyd's List and PLoS ONE (display column) is considered a journal, for some reason, whereas they should be uncategorized.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all the same issue as above (syntax error in a regex). Fixed. Added 'organization' as well. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed version saving now. Let me know if you see anything else. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

JLaTondre (talk · contribs) Looks much better and near flawless!

• I missed Organisation/Organisations in the keywords.
• VizieR On-line Data Catalog: B/gcvs. Originally published in: 2009yCat....102025S gets categorized as a website, but I don't see what in the above logic should trigger that categorization. It should be categorized as a database (matches 'Catalog' in the title).
• International Naval Research Organization, doesn't get categorized. It should be a publisher (matches Organizations in the category, Organization in the title).

No need to re-run for those things, but the logic should be tweaked in the next run. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Organization was a typo in the regex and Catalog was being set to website vs. database by mistake. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

JLaTondre (talk · contribs) Apparently the dumps happen on the 1st and 20th of the month. I guess they've increased their frequency. No need to run on the new code on the 20th's dump since the 1st is just around the corner, but I'll be very eager to see the 'final' code roll out combined with the ISO-tagging I did in the past few days. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Dumps typically happen twice a month. Exact dates can vary if they have issues. Results from the 20170401 dump have been posted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@JLaTondre: [[7]] gets classified as journal rather than ISO. Are you doing a category check for ISO, or trying to do a template parsing check? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Template matching since I'm working off the dump. I'll look at whether retrieving the category or expanding the templates would be easier. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017

I will be making (assuming my proposal is accepted) a presentation on JCW at Wikimania 2017, in Montreal.

If you are interested in attending, please sign up! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/JCW-CleanerBot

If you have comments, please make them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:PCW discussion at WP:BOOKS

Please comment there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Invalid cleanup

Going to ping @Phoebe and Anne Delong: here since you've both expressed interest in cleaning up bad stuff in the compilation.

If you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Invalid, it contains a lot of bad stuff. Some of them are very similar in scope, and I've made dedicated sections below to deal with this. There is additionally Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/I10 (and subsequent pages), that have entries that begin with "In..." which are usually reference to conference proceedings and book chapters that would need to be updated to {{cite book}}/{{cite conference}}.

Thanks a million for any help you can give. Or might be able to recruit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I've contacted WP:PHYS, WP:AST, WP:GEOL, WP:CARS and WP:DND for help with some of those. If you come from those projects, the idea is that you can look in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Invalid and there are a bunch of invalid entries that need to be cleaned up. There will be a link to the article with the problematic entry, so you can click on that and fix the citation. 'Invalid' here means simply that there's a character somewhere that prevents a proper link from being formed (like a stray bracket, or a # sign). It's not necessarily a sign that something is broken, but it often is indicative of poor usage of citation templates and their parameters.

If you need some help making sense of this, feel free to ask. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

AGU meetings

What needs to be cleaned up:

• Various American Geophysical Union meetings, which should be cleaned up to American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting, with the absract id put in |page=, e.g. | converted to |journal=American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting |year=2009 |page=#PP31D-1385. They will often have bibcodes, containing the actual information needed for cleanup.
• Likewise for spring meetings, which should be cleaned up to American Geophysical Union, Spring Meeting.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

---

BAAS

What needs to be cleaned up:

• Various American Astronomical Society meetings, which should be converted to the appropriate Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society. They will often have bibcodes, containing the actual information needed for cleanup.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

---

BAAS is... complicated. It used to be an actual journal, but currently it's (mostly) just a website with downloadable versions of the abstract booklet for each AAS meeting. Those abstracts each get entered onto NASA ADS, so get bibcodes, but that's just a publicity thing for the meeting and there's no actual content beyond the title & abstract. The meeting abstracts are not reliable sources (in the sense of WP:RS) for anything really. The only exception is that the AAS continues to publish some obituaries on their website at [8], which for historical reasons are assigned BAAS volume and page numbers, and thus also get bibcodes. Those are fine as references. Any sort of cleanup is going to have to distinguish between historical material containing actual scientific content, modern meeting abstracts, and obituaries. Frankly the AAS have made it a real mess. I've started by replacing one with a {{cn}} [9] Modest Genius ^talk 16:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Abstract like those are often fine for small claims. They're not quite as solid as peer-reviewed journals, but most times I see them it's for something completely benign. I don't have a problem citing Bibcode:2007AAS...210.4205S for "These observations were most likely made by an Assyrian astronomer around the 14th century BC." They're about as reliable as course material uploaded on personal websites.

But the issue here is simply cleaning them up properly. If they're appropriate for referencing the claim they back up is an entirely different thing. (They're quite highly cited too, entry #622 here). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Dungeon / Dragon

What needs to be cleaned up:

• Dragon # / Dungeon #. These are references to Dragon (magazine) and Dungeon (magazine), and if I remember correctly, need to be cited with volume, number, issue, and pages. Having both a number and an issue makes things a bit weird. I've used |volume=VOLUME |issue=NUMBER/ISSUE |pages=PAGES in the past for this.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Toutes les voitures francaises

What needs to be cleaned up:

• Toutes les voitures françaises <year>, which I think is a book, and thus should use {{cite book}}.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Other cleanup

Have questions about other cases? Ask them here! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

questionable?

Why do the headers say: Journals that start with Questionable without saying what it questionable? Gah4 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I suppose we could tweak the template to have messages that make a bit more sense when the <Foobar> in .../Journals cited by Wikipedia/<Foobar> is not a letter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gah4: should be fixed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks much, now it makes sense. I didn't figure it out before. Gah4 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Add WikiData ID to table

If it is easy to get the WikiData ID for a journal name, please add it to the table. This should be the WikiData link for the journal page - if it falls under the periodical literature or the like taxonomy.

• scientific journal (d:Q5633421)
• periodical literature (d:Q1002697)
• Nature (d:Q180445)
• British Medical Journal (d:Q546003)

RDBrown (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@RDBrown: something to think about. It should be doable, but there's a few other things to take care of before that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

This is my new favorite WikiProject

Just want to say I'm impressed and good on you. - Scarpy (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Scarpy: Thanks. How'd you find it? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I happened to check the pageview statistics for cusper and saw a spike on the 3rd and thought maybe it got linked in some new article. So I checked Special:WhatLinksHere/Cusper and saw some links to this project and clicked out of curiosity. It doesn't explain the increase in views, but I was happy to find it none-the-less. :) - Scarpy (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 1#Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN

Please comment. The outcome of this discussion could greatly impact our ability to cleanup articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences

As far as I can see, this not an academic journal but some sort of pseudo-science outlet: Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences. It is published by the Creation Biology Society, with mission to "develop and nurture a community of dedicated researchers committed to understanding the life sciences from a young-age creationist perspective through meetings and publications". It is used in two instances that could easily be deleted, but I wonder if it should also be explicitly blacklisted? Micromesistius (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll add it to the WP:CITEWATCH and WP:UPSD and removed it from Albertosaurinae. Not sure what's the other instance you're talking about. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Found it on Eothyris. Also removed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Micromesistius (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

HIPAA Journal

There are a relative handful of WP references to HIPAA Journal. This is not an academic journal, it seems to host press releases (or re-written press releases) from various sources such as HHS, presumably articles which tend to support the commercial value of obtaining systems to manage HIPAA compliance. I would suggest we should generally avoid citations to this publication, assuming the original source is available. Fabrickator (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

BMQ

A link to K. W. Gransden was added to this page listing a journal as "BMQ" (and linking to BMQ, which is a disambig page). BMQ is British Museum Quarterly; the journal is cited multiple times in the article and is shortened on all but the first. Thanks. blameless 22:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Blameless: Is there a question here? That's pretty normal behaviour for the compilation. BMQ is what's used in the article, so BMQ is what the compilation reports. This solves the "issue". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks, and thanks for your edits. Since the bot created a wikilink, I wasn't sure whether that link was supposed to go to the article for a journal (I did add the journal to BMQ, which I assume will make it clearer). blameless 23:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"I did add the journal to BMQ" Great! In general, we shouldn't acronymize journals when citing them, simply because the reader will very rarely know what it meant. For example BAMS can refer to many journals, on top of other things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Error in list

Hello! There is a mistake in your listing. B's-LOG is not and never has been a blog hosting service. It is a professionally run gaming magazine by Kadokawa as a sister publication to Famitsu. Please fix this - it has an editorial department. Londonbeat41692 (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Londonbeat41692: what page in the listings are you talking about? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a little confused now myself as I thought I left this comment on the talk page of the place I found it (it's not coming up on that page now), but there was something that listed B's LOG under "blog hosting services" in what looked like parameters for a bot or something of the like.Londonbeat41692 (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The only place it's "listed" is at User:JL-Bot/Citations.cfg, which is the exclusion list for WP:JCW/TAR and WP:CITEWATCH. Which means B's-LOG won't be listed as a Blog hosting service. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! Looks like it's good then. Londonbeat41692 (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Marlowe portrait

This article has a ref named "Corpus letter" and so appears at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Publisher13. However, this Corpus letter is a Corpus Christi College, Cambridge publication. I've never come across these pages before, so I don't know how much this matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: It doesn't matter a whole lot. That said, it's a mismatch to Cureus, so that's rather easy to fix. It won't be listed there tomorrow. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:JCW reaches 3 million total citations!

With the latest dump, the WP:JCW compilation has reached 3M citations for its analysis. 2.75M come from {{cite journal}}, the rest from a variety of templates. Mind blowing!

Again thanks to User:JLaTondre for making this possible. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI re Myia

"Journal" Myia is listed in position #89 of the top most cited ... but the linked article is not about a journal. Esculenta (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The compilation shows our Myia entry. The lack of color-coding shows that the current Myia article isn't about the journal. To "fix" this, simply create the journal article at Myia (journal). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)