Talk:Cretica Chronica

Notability

Dr. Blofeld and Rosiestep, while I appreciate your hard work improving this article, I don't think that removing the notability tag was justified yet. Let's look at the sources available right now. 1/ A catalog entry, notoriously unreliable and only used to source the possible use of "Cretan Annals" as alternative title. 2/ Another catalog entry, used to source the fact that this is published in Heraklion. 3/ The journal's own homepage. 4/ Dr. Hionides in 1972 citing an article that he published in this journal in 1949. Why is this factoid even included? Who says this was an important article? 5/ Somebody cited an article on Atlantis. One citation... 6/ A travelers guide citing an article in the journal, again, just one citation. 7/ Again, just a citation of an article in the journal. Nowhere is there any discussion of this journal. In fact, not even the cited articles are discussed (they're just listed with others to support some statement made). Finally, there was a list of "other notable contributors" added, something otherwise never done in articles on academic journals, given that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm perfectly willing to believe that this journal is notable, but I'd like to see some evidence for that and, unfortunately (given the time you spend on this), I don't think the references presented establish anything approaching notability. --Randykitty (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It's utter BS Randykitty that this isn't a notable journal. It's widely documented. Exactly how many existing articles on journals do we have which don't have a massive amount of coverage actually discussing the publication itself but is referenced in countless reliable sources? I'd say a very sizable percentage. I suggest you do something more useful with your time. If you took it to AFD it wouldn't stand a snowball's chance. I'd argue that this is exactly the sort of article which makes wikipedia so valuable as a resource.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• It is useful when a citation links to an article about the cited publication. The reader can then evaluate the value of the citation. Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) captures this idea when it says a journal may be considered notable when it is frequently cited by other reliable sources. A search in Google Books for "κρητικά χρονικά" shows that the journal is often cited, The article is useful to people like me who ask, "Says who?" Aymatth2 (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Borderline at best ' Technicalliy it does not meet the notability standard. Not in major indexes, and no real sources--everything listed there is am ere mention except for the history of journal on the History of Crete site, but they seem to be the sponsors. The journal isn't even in Worldcat. BUT it nonetheless might be the major journal on its subject, in which case I would as an exception include. Unfortunately , it isn't; .The major one seems to be Cretan studies. [1] DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Erm, not quite. The journal is in Worldcat, albeit with a different transliteration, "Kretika Chronika", which derives directly from the Greek title. If you search with this transliteration, you'll find the journal is relatively commonly cited (e.g. GScholar). Te journal publishers OTOH seem to prefer the latinized transliteration Cretica Chronica, for reasons unknown. Constantine ✍ 08:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Even with that transliteration, that's only a smattering of citations. A single researcher would not be deemed notable with that few citations, let alone a complete journal. And although it does seem to be in WorldCat, no libraries seem to hold it, not even in Greece itself. Dr. Blofeld, stating: "It is also known for publishing rare manuscripts and accounts. In 1949, in Volume III, H. Hionides published an account of "The Siege and Fall of Candia"." and then sourcing this to another publication where the very same author cites himself, now that is utter BS. The article basically now is full of unsourced fluff... Please provide some real beef, of to AfD we go... --Randykitty (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw at least five sources which said either previously unpublished or manuscript which makes it clear that it often publishes previously unpublished or rare accounts of something. I didn't think one or two sources would adequately back it up but it's true.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Cretica Chronica" is the English-language form given on the magazine cover and on the website, but a lot of citations use "κρητικά χρονικά": Scholar, Books, JSTOR. More than a smattering. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• 14 (fourteen) mentions on JSTOR, most cited article on GS 22 cites, the rest is in the single digits. That is exactly what I call a handful of citations. No single researcher would be judged notable based on this citation record, let alone a whole journal. Please note that these citations are all just references to articles published by the journal (what we could call "in passing" if these were newspaper articles mentioning some article subject), not in depth discussions of those articles (and even less in-depth discussions of the journal itself). --Randykitty (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• If 100 books cite the journal, most people would say the journal is frequently cited. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• PErhaps most people, but not people who know something about academic journals... --Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Where's the massive amount of book coverage on The Veliger then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• @DGG: Cretan studies is a relatively new publication, established in 1998. Maybe it outshines Cretica Chronica in the present day, but is Wikipedia in a position to say that prior to 1998, there was no notable academic journal addressing Cretan topics? Notability today and notability 40 years ago can't be measured in the same way; same point regarding notability of a journal in a small or obscure market segment vs. notability in a large market. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• The Veliger is included in no less than five selective bibliographic indices (some very selective: Science Citation Index Expanded and Current Contents, for example). Inclusion in aby one of those indices only comes after a thorough evaluation process. Cretica Chronica is not even in the least selective of these indices (Scopus, which does otherwise include a large number of Humanities journals) or, indeed, in any index at all. According to the Journal Citation Reports, articles in The Veliger are cited about five hundred times every year (and the JCR usually gives much lower counts than GS, which we have been using here). Note that The Veliger is a rather obscure journal (which, I guess, is why you chose it from among the articles that I have created) and then compare these data with the life-time citation data mentioned above for Cretica Chronica. As for Rosiesteps last argument, I really don't think that being the only journal around covering a small field is in itself enough to make a journal notable, pre- or post-1998. --Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Thinking about this further, specialized humanities journals on local topics can be very specialized indeed, especially those dealing with archeology. SCI has almost none of the from, and Scopus very few, but they nonetheless are essential for researchers in the field. They are normally distributed primarily to individual society members, and often (as is the case here) not widely available in libraries outside the area. In fact, many of the specialized ones are in the local language, but even in worldcat 184 of the 196 listed are in English. I think we need to cover them. The notability standard should be used to exclude the very minor journals in field there are important journals, not to eliminate coverage of subject fields. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

DGG, the problem is, we have exactly zero sources to build an article on. The article as it stands is highly deficient. It states "Over the years, the journal has provided a wide range of material into studies of Crete in a diversity of fields, including history, archaeology, culture, and folklore of the island of Crete", without this being based on anything. It then continues "It is also known for publishing rare manuscripts and accounts." That is followed by what apparently should be taken as examples: one citation to an article by its very own author and one other citation (just a standard in-line reference) to another article. Hence: not based on anything. It cites a further example, based on a reference in a travel guide. Etc. Are we really going to list single articles in journal articles, based on the simple fact that they've been cited somewhere? (And I mean "cited", not "in-depth discussion"). The article is "completed" by a list of notable authors (I distinctly remember seeing you write somehere earlier today that such listings are a no-no). So we can cut back the article to just the lead, with two "references" to catalogs (and you know probably much better than myself how often those contain mistakes). So the only reference that we have here is the journal's own, extremely brief website. If that is enough to keep a journal article, we should now start creating articles for any journal published by OMICS, because those have generally more coverage than this one... How can we defend deleting OMICS journals if we allow this one to stand on such subjective grounds as "I think we need to cover them"? Yes, in an ideal world we would be able to cover them and we pwould have the sources to do so. Unfortunately, the world is not ideal and we don't have the sources here. --Randykitty (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Try alternate spellings, such as Kretika Chronika, and you'll find this in Foreign Social Science Bibliographies, Issue 5, by United States. Bureau of the Census, this by the Society of Cretan Historical Studies, and this in The Selected Letters of Nikos Kazantzakis, By Nikos Kazantzakis, Peter Bien. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment for anyone not following these discussions: though we agree on almost everything else on WP, RK and I have consistently disagreed about articles on this sort of journal. We have enough factual material to give publication history and sponsorship and editorship , and that's enough basis for an article that may be of some value to people looking for information. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with letting this article stand, although I maintain that it does not meet any notability requirement (sorry Rosiestep, but those references you came up with don't do it either for me) and will !vote "delete" should someone take it to AfD. However, I do insist that everything after the lead has to go, basically being unsourced OR/SYNTH/puffery. --Randykitty (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of fictional cruft and junk which would have no place in a real encyclopedia. Why anybody thinks an article on a peer reviewed academic journal is inappropriate encyclopedia material beats me, especially one which is referenced in hundreds of sources. We ought to have dozens of articles on Cretan journals and literature. Yes, the content section is very selective given it's history, but its an example of what has been published in it which is fine. And yes, it is true that it often published previously unpublished materials and rare accounts and manuscripts. I don't know why such time is wasted over articles like this when there's more seriously bad ones which need to be thrown out asap.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought you'd be the last person to throw WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS at me. I don't care about all that fictional cruft and I don't edit in that area. I care about encyclopedic content in the articles that I edit, and that includes this one. The article currently goes against all standards that we have for journal articles (list of "notable authors", list of people on the editorial board, without any evidence that those people ever actually did on the board; etc.) See WP:JWG. You claim to have seen "at least five sources which said either previously unpublished or manuscript", but I don't see any of that. I see two possibilities: we stubify this to the lead as it was before the editorial board members were added (mening that we only leave the reliable information and no OR/SYNTH stuff) or we take this to AfD and waste some more time. --Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

LOL, I did a test and sure enough OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.. Have you not got anything better to do than to bully the people who try hard to improve wikipedia as a resource with your "expert" snotty superiority on journals? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and if the "guidelines" for how to write journal articles say to avoid stating notable authors who've contributed to it then I say WP:IGNORE ALL RULES applies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sjeez, running out of arguments so now you're getting petulant? You're free to ignore my snotty bullying opinion, but you could ask yourself why perfectly rational editors like Headbomb (who wrote most of that journal article writing guide) or DGG (see here for example) agree with such a recommendation. You know, the possibility that there's actually a good reason behind this recommendation does exist. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Like DGG, I'm partial to keep this journal when it's such a small field (kinda like Journal of Indigenous Studies which is the only journal that was ever published in Cree), if only because it seems like this journal's history is link to the establishment of several things, like the Society of Cretan Historical Studies, the Historical Museum of Crete and the International Cretological Congresses, if [2] is to be believed, and I think the argument that this meets WP:NJOURNALS #3 is a good one despite that source being primary. I also feel that such an old journal in such a narrow field in a non-English is greatly harmed by the digital nature of our online searches and our non-ability (for most of us) to read Greek.

That being said, like RK, I am against the inclusion of a list of authors, list of articles, and non EiC editors, unless we can establish those as being particularly notable through reliable 3rd party sources. I've edited the article accordingly. There might be room for mentioning a few of those people and articles in a 'History / Influence' section of some sort, but we would need good sources for that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

And the sneer and vitriol directed at RK is completely unwarranted. You can disagree while staying WP:CIVIL folks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing Journal of Indigenous Studies, an article I created on 24 October 2008‎. I mention that so that you understand that some of us -- like me -- are interested in small "gems", and if we are, then our readers might be, too. I think notability guidelines are quite necessary, but I also think we're not married to guidelines and we can make exceptions. I'm not here to argue the point; that is not my style. But I am saying, again, that notability today and decades ago might need different measurement standards, and small/obscure market segments might need unique standards, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cretica Chronica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140928180046/http://64.244.59.70/IMH/index.aspx?l=En to http://64.244.59.70/IMH/index.aspx?l=En

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)