Talk:AoB Plants

Discussions during WP:AFC process

AoB PLANTS - notable by your own criteria, yet rejected anyway - explain? From your own guidelines: "As a rule of thumb, if a journal is indexed in a selective database, or has an impact factor, this will be enough to establish notability." AoB PLANTS has an impact factor of 1.743 and is indexed in Web of Science and Scopus, both extremely selective databases. But apparently neither of these impresses Wikipedia reviewers. GailRice (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC) AoB PLANTS - new problem Now there seems to be a problem because I am under contract to AoB PLANTS as the Managing Editor. As part (perhaps 1%) of my considerable responsibilities, I have been asked to submit an entry about the journal to Wikipedia. A "diff" has been posted that seems critical of my position with the journal vis-a-vis my authoring of this entry. I don't understand. GailRice (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC) @GailRice: During the WP:AFC process we note and tend to disregard WP:COI. It is important, though, that the source and motivation of a major author is recorded. No-one is critical of your position. We sympathise with the fact that you have been instructed to create this article. That does not mean we will not record the fact, especially where you have declared it. Thank you for declaring it further in this thread. We are, however, critical of your unwillingness to bend to the way Wikipedia works. Any one of us can move this draft to the main namespace. There is a reason we have not, so far. The oft unstated WP:AFC objective is to assist editors to create article that have a better than 60% chance of surviving a formal deletion process. The opinion of several reviewers, me included, is that it does not have the chance of survival, even though such processes are unpredictable. Wikipedia is, probably, outside your creative writing experience. As you gain expertise this will alter and you will wonder why it was so hard to do the simple things required. Right now the evidence from this draft is that you do not yet possess that expertise, despite being expert in your own field. Though not directly relevant, WP:ACADEME may assist your understanding. Consider this: It is far easier to edit a draft that is pushed back, even repeatedly, with no time limit at all, than to defend in a deletion discussion where there is a seven day time limit. The outcome of the former is a verdict on acceptance or not. The outcome of the latter is either retention or deletion. Deletion means it is very much harder to create the article in the future. There are rules that almost insist on the summary deletion of material once deleted at WP:AFD and recreated in a similar manner. The meat of this putative article has not a lot of scope for being recreated in anything other than a similar manner. Fiddle Faddle 10:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Journal title

When I look at the journal cover, it seems pretty evident that the title is spelled "AoB Plants" and not "AoB PLANTS". As the journal itself does not systematically uses the same style, we should use the more common capitalization style for journal titles, which would be "AoB Plants". --Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Randykitty: It does appear as if it uses an AllCaps/Small Caps font, which is confusing. Since the contributing author is the managing editor I have chosen to accept her assurance, but I do not feel strongly either way. Fiddle Faddle 17:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Note that the "o" in "AoB" is in the same font as the letters "lant" in "Plant", as far as I can see... I have posted a question at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization), the guideline itself is a bit ambiguous. I see this as equivalent to cases where the word "the" is included or not in "The Journal of Foo" vs "Journal of Foo". We only include "the" in article titles (and text) if a journal consequently includes "the" in its title, on the cover and on their website. But let's see whether we get some guidance at the style page. --Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

See MOS:TM, MOS:CAPS, MOS:ABBR, MOS:TITLES, WP:NCCAPS. The short version:

• No, do not over-capitalize "Plants" to match a "PLANTS" logo.
• "AoB" is fine; just because some would render it as "AOB" or "AB" doesn't matter. We have no rule about that, and no reason to not style an actualy acronym/initialism the way it is usually styled. E.g. PLOS One is now given as "PLOS" though it was formerly "PLoS". Really, no one cares.

We do care about the overcapping of non-acronyms, though. If that's permitted in one case, then everyone will want to do it, and more. E.g. move Sony to SONY to mimic its logo, then next they're going to want to write, at Pink (singer), "P!NK's third album, TRy THiS to match the cover, and so on. "Just say no."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)